Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

ISLE OF WIGHT BILL [Lords]

Read a Second time and committed.

STEVENAGE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY BILL (By Order)

GREATER LONDON COUNCIL (GENERAL POWERS) (No. 2) BILL (By Order)

LONDON TRANSPORT (No. 2) BILL (By Order)

Orders for Second Reading read.

To be read a Second time upon Tuesday 26 February.

Oral Answers to Questions — DEFENCE

Army Officers

Mr. Canavan: asked the Secretary of State for Defence what percentage of commissioned officers in the Army was educated at public schools.

The Under-Secretary of State for Defence for the Army (Mr. Barney Hayhoe): Details of the number of serving Army officers who were educated at independent schools are not available. The Army encourages applications for commissions from suitable canditates from schools of all types.

Mr. Canavan: Is the Minister aware that, while about 5 per cent. only of all pupils go to public schools, in the year 1977–78 55 per cent. of candidates accepted for Army commissions were ex-public schoolboys? Is it therefore surprising to see the kind of Right-wing indoctrination that goes on in Camberley? Does not that illustrate the militant tendencies of the public schools and their ability to infiltrate the British Armed Forces?

Mr. Hayhoe: I utterly repudiate the biased and prejudiced comments of the hon. Gentleman. The reaction from his own colleagues appeared to be that they laughed at such comments as much as we did. New entrants to the Army are divided roughly half and half between State schools and other schools.

Mr. Stokes: Does my hon. Friend agree that good officers come from a wide variety of background but that those who come from public or grammar schools often show outstanding qualities of leadership?

Mr. Hayhoe: I certainly agree with my hon. Friend. The Army, of course, draws no distinction between applicants from State or independent schools. We are rightly concerned with the high standards expected of officers.

Mr. Concannon: While it is important that we get a good spread of officer material from all kinds of educational establishments does the Minister agree


with me when I say to my hon. Friend the Member for West Stirlingshire (Mr. Canavan) that, if he thinks the situation is bad now, it is a lot better than it used to be?

Mr. Buck: Does my hon. Friend agree that if there is one thing worse than a snob, it is an inverted snob?

Mr. Hayhoe: Yes. Alas, one has to look at one or two of them from this Dispatch Box.

Mr. Speaker: Order. If that is so, I want to say that I went to Tonypandy grammar school.

NATO

Mr. Michael Brown: asked the Secretary of State for Defence when he next intends to meet his North Atlantic Treaty Organisation colleagues.

The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. Francis Pym): I expect to meet NATO Defence Ministers at the Eurogroup and Defence Planning Committee meetings in May.

Mr. Brown: When my right hon. Friend meets his NATO colleagues will he raise with them the dangerous situation that may arise as a result of the uncertainties in Yugoslavia following the illness of President Tito? Will he discuss with them at the first opportunity the possibility of an unfortunate outcome to those difficulties and uncertainties?

Mr. Pym: We shall consider that possibility when the time comes. The meeting is some way off. I remind my hon. Friend that the Prime Minister has said that we shall do everything we can to see that the independence of Yugoslavia is maintained.

Mr. Marks: Will the Secretary of State tell his colleagues at NATO that the failure to ratify SALT 2 is as harmful to the people of America and the NATO countries as it is to the Soviets and that America should be urged to consider that fact?

Mr. Pym: I believe that the hon. Gentleman knows the position of the Government on that matter. We hope that SALT 2 will be ratified. That is also the hope of the Opposition. There has been no change in that matter

Mr. Robert Atkins: Will my right hon. Friend tell his colleagues at NATO and in this House what is the planned increase in defence spending by his Department over the next five years?

Mr. Pym: The House knows that the Government attach great importance to the NATO aim to seek to achieve a 3 per cent. increase per year in real terms. We believe that to be a most important objective.

Mr. Dalyell: Will one item on the agenda be the question of possible nuclear leaks from URENCO, in Almelo, Holland? Is not that of great concern relating, as it does to Pakistan and NATO policy?

Mr. Pym: I doubt whether the Defence Planning Committee is the proper body to deal with that matter but I shall consider what the hon. Gentleman has said.

Mr. Speaker: This matter comes up later.

Royal Navy (Recruiting)

Mr. Farr: asked the Secreatry of State for Defence if he is satisfied with present recruiting levels for the Royal Navy.

The Under-Secretary of State for Defence for the Royal Navy (Mr. Keith Speed): Not yet. Recruitment into the Royal Navy over the last year continues to show an encouraging increase over that which was achieved in the previous 12 months. However, there is still a shortage in some categories and we have a number of measures in hand that are aimed at improving the position.

Mr. Farr: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that reply. However, will he tell the House whether there is sufficient skilled and technical personnel not to prejudice the procurement of the Chevaline programme in relation to our Polaris submarines?

Mr. Speed: As far as I am aware that is so. However, one shortage is in the artificer ratings, although I am pleased to tell my hon. Friend that, this year, there has been a larger number of entrants into artificer categories than in any year since 1964.

Mr. R. C. Mitchell: If the recruiting level of the Royal Navy is increased will there be enough ships for it to sail in?—What proposals does the Minister have to increase ship building?

Mr. Speed: There are such proposals and the details will be contained in the Defence White Paper that is to be published in the near future.

Mr. Duffy: Will the Minister say a word about the campaign that was begun last autumn to encourage technicians to enter the submarine branch of the Royal Navy? Will he also say a word about nuclear watchkeepers?

Mr. Speed: The matter has been going well. I am not complacent about nuclear watchkeeprs in the submarine branch but the position is better than it was, not least because of financial incentives. A particular problem in the submarine service is that concerning junior seamen grade officers. Nevertheless, that is also improving and we are keeping a close eye on the position.

NATO

Mr. John Evans: asked the Secretary of State for Defence when he next expects to meet his North Atlantic Treaty Organisation colleagues.

Mr. Pym: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply which I gave earlier today.

Mr. Evans: When the Secretary of State meets his NATO colleagues will he make it clear that many people in this country do not believe that the British economy will bear a 3 per cent.per annum increase in defence expenditure? Will he also make it clear that, despite the howls of outrage from his Right wing, he has no plans further to increase defence expenditure?

Mr. Pym: The hon. Gentleman is right to draw the attention of the House to the state of the economy. Of course, we have also to draw the attention of the House to the threat that we face. We believe, notwithstanding economic difficulties, that a further effort on defence is required. The whole Alliance takes that view and I personally would prefer that the increase should be greater than it will be. Despite economic difficulties, further effort on defence is un-

doubtedly required and that is why we attach such importance to it.

Mr. Banks: When my right hon. Friend meets his colleagues in NATO, will he discuss the report that the Soviet Union used chemical weapons producing nerve gas in its occupation of Afghanistan? Will he look in to the ways in which NATO forces can defend themselves against such weapons?

Mr. Pym: I am unable to confirm or deny whether chemical weapons were used in Afghanistan. However, the protection of our forces against horrific chemical warfare is thought to be better—certainly as good, although SACEUR believes better—than any other army in Europe. That should be of reassurance to the House. What is alarming is the existence of the chemical capability by the Warsaw Pact countries. It is a horrific weapon and causes great anxiety. It is not sufficiently criticised and we are considering what should be our attitude towards it.

Mr. Cook: When the Secretary of State meets his colleagues in NATO, will he remind them that assurances were given in this House and elsewhere that the decision to deploy cruise missiles would be accompanied by a new initiative in arms control? Is he aware that the paltry five-point statement that was issued in December neither contained anything new nor did it reveal an initiative? Will he invite his colleagues to pursue arms control with the same zest and animation with which they are pursuing the deployment of cruise missiles?

Mr. Pym: Clearly, events in the world since that decision was taken have produced a cold climate for detente and arms control. However, that has in no way altered the importance that the Government attach to arms control. Offers remain on the table. So far, what has been put there has been rejected effectively by the Warsaw Pact countries. It is unfortunate and, although it is an important part of our policy, unless and until the other side is prepared to follow a policy of balanced and verifiable reduction it behoves us to be extremely cautious.

Mr. William Rodgers: The House will have noted that the right hon. Gentleman


takes a cautious view about the prospects for increased defence spending and, surely, that is right. Nevertheless, can the right hon. Gentleman say what new options increased defence spending would have created for Afghanistan or for the stabilising of the regime in Iran, the failure of which has created special problems for us in the Middle East? Surely, the right hon. Gentleman does not believe that defence spending itself is a soluton to what are, essentially, political problems.

Mr. Pym: I do not believe that I have pretended at any stage that a further spending on defence would have been specifically directed to what happened in Afghanistan, the events in Iran or the Middle East. The question is the total capability that NATO requires to deter a potential aggressor in the light of the growing strength of that potential aggressor. I could not be specific vis-a-vis the events in Afghanistan, and it would not be right for me to be so.

RAF Strike Command

Mr. Michael McNair-Wilson: asked the Secretary of State for Defence whether he is satisfied with the cargo and troop-carrying capability of RAF Strike Command.

The Under-Secretary of State for Defence for the Royal Air Force (Mr. Geoffrey Pattie): No. It is for that reason that the fuselages of 30 of our Hercules aircraft are being extended to give extra freight capacity.

Mr. McNair-Wilson: Does my hon. Friend agree that the fact that American Galaxy and Starlifter aircraft had to be used to carry our helicopters and other heavy vehicles for the use of our peace-keeping force in Rhodesia suggests that there is a gap in the capability of RAF Strike Command in the requirement to reinforce or to deploy rapidly?

Mr. Pattie: I should tell my hon. Friend that the RAF was in a position to undertake that airlift capacity from within its own resources. The key question as to why it did not is one of speed. The extra heavy lift that United States' aircraft provide was needed. Therefore, we went for the quicker option of getting our forces in place.

Mr. Emery: Does not my hon. Friend accept that speed is normally a factor in reinforcing any situation and is likely to remain so in the future? Will he tell the House the percentage of the airlift that was carried out by the RAF, commercial companies under contract and by the United States and the extra cost that would be involved if, in order to meet the speed requirement, the RAF had the resources to carry out such an airlift?

Mr. Pattie: First, no civilian aircraft were used. The United States undertook two Galaxy sorties and 21 Starlifter sorties. I do not have percentage figures but I shall write to my hon. Friend on that matter. Of course, it would be desirable for the RAF to have the full range of aircraft available, but the decision was taken some years ago to reduce that option.

Manpower

Mr. Douglas: asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the expected reduction in industrial and non-industrial staff within his Department.

Mr. Pym: I aim to reduce by April 1982 the number of United Kingdom-based staff in my Department by 15,000 from the provision at1 April 1979. Half of this reduction is expected to come from the recruiting ban imposed by the Government last summer. That reduction has been made permanent. The remainder will come from those measures announced in the House on 6 December 1979 by my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Civil Service Department, as part of the review of the size and cost of the Civil Service.
In addition, I have commissioned studies to establish whether there is scope for saving in the Royal dockyards, research and development establishments and supply management. I am determined to ensure that my Department's business is carried out in the most efficient way.

Mr. Douglas: Will the Secretary of State concede that part of the supposed reduction is likely to be cosmetic as a result of the Government's desire to reduce numbers in the Civil Service? Will he ensure, particularly in relation to the naval dockyard at Rosyth, that the allocation of overheads, the screening of personnel and the security risks involved


in employing outside contractors, are reviewed?

Mr. Pym: I appreciate the hon. Gentleman's interest in and knowledge of Rosyth. I am aware of the points that he has raised. It is possible that some posts may be saved. However, that depends upon the tenders that have now been put out. I shall certainly bear in mind those important points.

Mr. Viggers: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there is great concern in Portsmouth and Gosport about the un-intentional rundown of Portsmouth dockyard, as a result of the lack of skilled manpower? Will my right hon. Friend give special flexibility to the management of Portsmouth dockyard, so that it can recruit the necessary men?

Mr. Pym: I am acutely aware of the problems that have arisen in that dockyard and in others due to the rundown of skilled manpower. A number of those in skilled grades have left to take better paid jobs. That is a cause of great anxiety. I assure my hon. Friend that that is one reason why the whole subject is being reviewed. I am expecting the result of the study at the beginning of April. Having received it, I hope to make decisions that will result in more efficient productivity in the dockyards and better service to the Royal Navy.

Mr. John Evans: How many of the 15,000 jobs to which the Secretary of State has referred will be transferred from the public sector to the private sector with the result that there will be no real savings?

Mr. Pym: I cannot give a specific answer to that question at the moment. I have never made a secret of the fact that a number of jobs will be transferred from one sector to the other. The question is whether that can be done at a more economic cost. That is an important element of the argument.

Mr. Snape: Can the Secretary of State assure us that any redundancies will be spread fairly between industrial and non-industrial staff? With reference to the question of my hon. Friend the Member for Newton (Mr. Evans), in what areas is it possible to increase defence expenditure and yet reduce staff?

Mr. Pym: If it is possible to fulfil our responsibilities at a more economic cost, a change should be considered. Indeed, if there are no strong objections to it, such a change should be carried through.

Mr. Burden: Does my right hon. Friend not agree that Chatham dockyard is now equipped to carry out work on the most up-to-date vessels? There are no manpower problems at Chatham. Will he, therefore, give an undertaking that Chatham dockyards will not suffer from cutbacks?

Mr. Pym: I have no such intention at the moment. I shall obviously consider the study before I come to any final conclusions. Obviously, the Royal dockyards fulfil a crucial function on behalf of the Royal Navy. It is in the interests of all that that work is carried out as efficiently and as effectively as possible. That is why the study is in hand.

Queen's Flight

Mr. Cyril D. Townsend: asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he has yet taken a decision on whether to reequip the Queen's Flight with modern aircraft; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Pattie: I have as yet nothing to add to the reply that I gave to my hon. Friend on 21 January.

Mr. Townsend: Is my hon. Friend aware that that was a disappointing reply, particularly as this prestigious Flight is equipped with 15-year-old turboprop planes? Does my hon. Friend agree that one of its roles is to display the latest and best of British aviation to potential foreign buyers?

Mr. Pattie: I do not know whether that was the original role of the Queen's Flight. It is certainly not its present role. The issue is being carefully considered. However, the whole cost will fall on the defence budget, and there are many other competing claims.

Mr. William Hamilton: Does the Minister agree that, while the Government are presiding over a national economy of sackcloth and ashes, it is the height of absurd extravagance to spend a single penny on that Flight? During the past 12 months, on how many occasions have aircraft from this Flight been used


for social purposes, to fly privileged personel to areas where they can shoot defenceless birds out of the air?

Mr. Pattie: I somehow thought, Mr Speaker, that the hon. Gentleman might seek to catch your eye. During the past year the Queen's Flight has not been used for the purposes described by the hon. Gentleman. I shall remind the hon. Gentleman that 35 per cent. of all flights in the Queen's Flight are for the purpose of transporting non-Royal persons, such as Service chiefs and Government Ministers—no matter which Government are in power. Therefore, the hon. Gentleman should not take this opportunity as another excuse to parade his prejudices.

Mr. Kershaw: Does my hon. Friend agree that the Queen's Flight is of the greatest help in the prosecution of Government business, especially in Northern Ireland? How on earth would the right hon. Member for Mansfield (Mr. Concannon)—who served as a Minister in Northern Ireland—have fitted into the tiny old-fashioned aeroplanes with which the Flight is equipped?

Mr. Pattie: My hon. Friend is right. The Queen's Flight is of great assistance to the Government.

Mr. Wellbeloved: Will the Minister confirm that the Queen's Flight consists not only of Andovers, but of the HS 125 and helicopters? VC 10s are also available for long-range Royal flights. Does he further agree that it would be a misappropriation of defence funds—particularly of the RAF's budget—to spend more on the Queen's Flight, when there are so many other deficiencies, particularly in air defence?

Mr. Pattie: The hon. Gentleman is attempting to draw me into areas of internal Ministry of Defence debate, based on his previous experience. We must look at the subject of the present study, and the various other aircraft used for VIP flights. We shall consider whether new equipment is needed. At some point, the Andover aircraft will have to be replaced. It is simply a question of whether they are to be replaced by British equipment. However, that must be the case.

Soviet Strategy (Europe)

Mr. Latham: asked the Secretary of State for Defence what recent assessment has been made by the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation Powers regarding Soviet intentions towards the use of military force in Europe; and whether he will make a statement.

Mr. Pym: NATO assessments conclude that the foreign and defence policies of the Soviet Union aim at moving the balance of power in its favour. In the light of this, and the continued build up of Warsaw Pact forces, NATO must make continued efforts to ensure that the Alliance forces remain an adequate deterrent to aggression in Europe. The Government are determined that the United Kingdom will play its full part in these efforts.

Mr. Latham: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that peace can be maintained in Europe only if the NATO Powers remain strong and united? Does he further agree that we should insist upon the territorial integrity of all countries in Europe that are outside the Soviet sphere of influence?

Mr. Pym: I certainly endorse my hon. Friend's point.

Mr. Haynes: If the Warsaw Pact countries were to increase their defence expenditure well above present figures, would the Secretary of State announce that the Government would review the 3 per cent. increase that he mentioned earlier?

Mr. Pym: NATO's strategy is to act as a deterrent. We have never sought to match the full capability deployed by the Warsaw Pact countries. Warsaw Pact forces outnumber ours in terms of tanks, manpower and in several other ways. We need an adequate capability to deter. At present, the Soviet Union is increasing its military output at a substantially higher rate than NATO. If that were to continue, and if we thought that it was leading to a dangerous imbalance, we would review the situation. Our present intention is not to increase at as great a rate as the Soviet Union, but to ensure that we have an adequate capability to deter aggression and to preserve peace.

Sir Frederic Bennett: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that in the realm of


conventional forces and of theatre nuclear forces, the Soviet Union already possesses a dangerous imbalance of strength? Does he further agree that in most cases that imbalance amounts to two or three times the size of our own forces?

Mr. Pym: Yes, such an imbalance does exist. There is also a growing imbalance in the nuclear field. The purpose of our nuclear capability is to maintain an adequate force with a retaliatory strike capability to deter an aggressor in the first place. We are constantly watching the balance between the two sides. We are aware, as I said earlier, that that balance is moving towards the East and that causes increased concern.

Mr. Frank Allaun: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that his reply ignores the rest of NATO's armed forces? Will he ask his NATO colleagues at least to negotiate Mr. Brezhnev's offer to reduce his SS20s if we do not proceed to deploy cruise and Pershing 2? We have three years before deployment takes place. Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that we should use it at least to negotiate that offer?

Mr. Pym: As the hon. Gentleman will know, there was no response at the MBFR negotiations. The offer made by the United States of withdrawing 1,000 warheads has not been taken up by the Soviet Union. The climate for a balanced and verifiable arms reduction appears to be unsatisfactory. That is not our fault. We are still trying to negotiate, and we hope to carry it through. Unless negotiation is undertaken on an even-handed basis by all sides, there is every reason for us to be cautious.

Sir John Eden: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the build-up of Soviet military strategy in Europe is far in excess of what is necessary for that country's self-defence? Will he make clear the Government's determination to repair as speedily as possible the damage done to our defence capability by the Labour Government?

Mr. Pym: I do not believe that the forces of the Soviet Union and the Warsaw Pact are necessarily thought of in a self-defence role. On the whole, they are rather thought of in terms of

offensive action. The Soviet Union's approach is totally different.
We want to increase our defence capability throughout the Alliance, and make our contribution. The increased imbalance is of great concern. At the same time, we would be wise to remember that we cannot go faster than the strength of our economy, and that is why we cannot increase our strength as quickly as some of us would like.

Reserve Forces

Mr. Trippier: asked the Secretary of State for Defence whether the recruitment in the reserve forces of the Crown has increased as a result of the improvement in pay and conditions recently introduced.

Mr. Hayhoe: Recruiting for all the volunteer reserves is generally encouraging. As I informed the House during the debate on national service on 1 February, recruitment for the Territorial Army, which constitutes the bulk of our volunteer forces, has shown a sustained improvement, with the strength having increased by some 2,500 since August last year.

Mr. Trippier: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply, which will give great encouragement to the vast majority of the House. Does he recall the statement that his right hon. Friend made to the House regarding the improvement in conditions and service of the reserve forces, to the effect that certain reserve forces such as the Royal Marines Reserve, will have their liability for call-up merged with the Territorial Army, and transfer of QO2 to QO1? When will that be done?

Mr. Hayhoe: My hon. Friend is a distinguished member of the Royal Marines Reserve—

Mr. Canavan: A sponsored Member.

Mr. Hayhoe: My right hon. Friend is right about the importance of speeding up mobilisation and reinforcement. Legislation may be required to bring the call-up requirement of those elements of our Armed Forces absolutely into line. I shall write to him on the details.

Mr. George: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that many of us on the Labour Benches welcome the figures given? The


Territorial Army is the closest approximation to a citizens' army that we can hope to achieve. Will the Minister confirm that we can meet our existing commitments, even in times of military pressure, within the framework of our professional Army, Regulars and Reservists, without recourse to the idiocy of a return to national service.

Mr. Hayhoe: We debated that matter on 1 February. At present it is our judgment that there is no need to return to national service. We believe that we can meet our defence requirements by building up our Regular forces and our reserve forces. Both were allowed to run down during the previous Administration and need to be built back to proper strength.

Her Majesty's Forces (Mobile Capability)

Mr. David Price: asked the Secretary of State for Defence, in view of the growing Soviet threat to the stability of South-West Asia, what additional strengthening he intends to make of Her Majesty's Forces' mobile capability.

Mr. Pym: Her Majesty's Forces already have the capability to deploy world-wide to meet various contingencies. A Royal Navy task group deploys every year outside the NATO area. The current operation in Rhodesia has demonstrated the ability of the Army and RAF to respond to a non-NATO task. All three Services have a regular programme of training and exercises with friendly countries. However, in the light of recent events in Afghanistan, we shall continue, in consultation with our Allies, to keep under review our Forces' capability for operations outside the NATO area.

Mr. Price: Does my right hon Friend agree that, due to the shortage of appropriate transport aircraft, our mobile capability outside the NATO area is, to say the least, limited?

Mr. Pym: In certain circumstances one could wish that that capability was larger. On the other hand, we must keep our capabilities in proportion. In order to carry troops to Rhodesia, for instance, in a short space of time, we required the use of substantially larger aircraft from the United States, which seemed to be a sensible use of Alliance resources. The

Alliance exists as a partnership, and the resources of each partner should be used as required in each situation. It does not mean, however, that we are satisfied with the present level of our transport. We are looking into the matter, and it may be possible modestly to extend our capability.

Mr. Stephen Ross: Does the Minister agree that the large-scale type hovercraft would provide an additional mobility capability for our Forces in the South-West Asia area? What does the Minister intend to do about procuring some?

Mr. Pym: I am bound to agree. Again, it is a question of resources. Recent tests and experiments have left no doubt that the value of those hovercraft is substantial.

Mr. Adley: In my right hon. Friend's designation of friendly countries does he include the People's Republic of China?

Mr. Pym: I think that I would, yes. Certainly those who are not against me are for me. We are taking some trouble to establish a friendly and sensible relationship with the People's Republic of China.

Mr. Roper: Is the right hon. Gentleman satisfied with our capacity for simultaneous parachute drops? Will he take account of that in reviewing the situation?

Mr. Pym: I am not sure that I am satisfied with anything. That capability is being studied.

Northern Ireland

Mr. Biggs-Davison: asked the Secretary of State for Defence whether he will make a statement on operations in Northern Ireland.

Mr. Hayhoe: The Armed Forces continue to demonstrate high levels of courage, skill and resourcefulness in carrying out their task in support of the Royal Ulster Constabulary. In the first month of this year, 68 people have been charged with terrorist offences, including 12 for murder and eight for attempted murder. Sadly, one regular soldier and four UDR soldiers have been killed in 1980 by terrorist activities, which continue to be directed primarily at members of security forces. However, three bombs totalling


over 1,000 lbs have been defused by ammunition technical teams and there have been significant finds of weapons and explosives.

Mr. Biggs-Davison: Apart from the Regular Army, does my right hon. Friend agree that the Ulster Defence Regiment deserves the thanks of Parliament after a decade of endurance, tedium, danger and cowardly murder, and, in particular, intimidation of its Roman Catholic members? Will the Ulster Defence Regiment receive a bounty no less than that received by those in the Territorial Army in time for the tenth anniversary of its splendid service?

Mr. Hayhoe: I am delighted to underline in every detail the highly proper remarks and tribute paid by my hon. Friend to the Ulster Defence Regiment. It performs a valuable service. I absolutely refute any suggestion of sectarian bias in the regiment. Bounties for the Ulster Defence Regiment are being studied, and I hope to make an announcement soon.

Mr. Molyneaux: Will the hon. Gentleman bear in mind the need to strengthen the defence capability in frontier areas, particularly in view of the muderous assaults mounted against the security forces in County Fermanagh?

Mr. Hayhoe: It is not for me to decide on the deployment of forces. That is for the GOC.

Mr. Farr: Will my hon. Friend confirm that, in those fairly rare cases where a member of Her Majesty's Forces is badly injured, compensation will be interpreted in the most humane and understanding way possible?

Mr. Hayhoe: I believe that that should be done.

Mr. Concannon: While joining with the Minister in his commendation of the Army, the UDR and anyone else in Northern Ireland on security duties, may I press him to say something about the possibility of long-term units? There was a suggestion that there would be long-term units in Northern Ireland to save rapid turnover.

Mr. Hayhoe: We are moving towards more resident battalions. Indeed, a fifth was introduced at Aldergrove in September 1978. Planning is in hand for a

sixth resident battalion, which will mean a reduction in the overstretch and turbulence for the other soldiers involved.

Self-loading Rifle

Mr. Shersby: asked the Secretary of State for Defence what consideration he is giving to the replacement of the SLR rifle at present in use by the Army; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Hayhoe: It is our intention to begin equipping the Army with a new rifle in the mid-80s. The calibre will depend on analysis of the results of the recently completed NATO small arms tests but will be smaller than that of the existing weapon.

Mr. Shersby: Is my hon. Friend aware that his announcement will be warmly welcomed by the Army? Is he also aware that a proportion of the SLR rifles in use by the Territorial Army at present are in very poor condition and not suitable for resisting an enemy using modern weapons? Will my hon. Friend consider whether the replacement of those rifles can be speeded up?

Mr. Hayhoe: My hon. Friend mentioned the SLR, which was introduced in 1956. Production ceased some 12 years ago. A continuing system of base repairs, together with the very latest repair techniques, is needed to ensure that the most economic use is obtained of these weapons. This is one reason why we are moving towards the new weapon as quickly as possible.

Mr. Allen McKay: Will the Minister tell us at what stage standardisation will be reached? Does he agree that the movement of political decisions should be enhanced to bring about the standardisation which the Armed Forces so badly need? Does he also agree that standardisation will reduce expenditure?

Mr. Hayhoe: I am very much in favour of standardisation within the NATO area and I have already referred to the NATOtrials. Whatever calibre is finally adopted, one can be certain that it will be standardised throughout NATO.

Mr. Kershaw: Is my hon. Friend aware that on the last occasion that a NATO rifle was adopted, the British contribution got very short shrift from our Allies? If there is to be further


consultation, will he press our case very hard?

Mr. Hayhoe: Certainly. There is no doubt at all that the United Kingdom tender in the NATO trials is performing, extremely well.

Training (Overseas Personnel)

Mr. Newens: asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the criteria laid down for the acceptance for courses of military or other training in Great Britain of members of the armed forces of a foreign country.

Mr. Pym: Our policy on the provision of military training for other countries is primarily governed by defence, foreign policy and economic considerations. There are also, of course, such practical considerations as the availability of places and the qualifications of the individual students.

Mr. Newens: Remembering that the son of the former president of Nicaragua. President Sumoza, was trained in this country, and that currently Argentinian and Indonesian forces are training here, can the Minister assure the House that human rights considerations in the home countries are taken fully into account before trainees are accepted here? Can he also assure the House that none of the trainees will be given courses in interrogation techniques, which many of us would regard as a euphemism for torture?

Mr. Pym: I am not aware of any courses being given in interrogation techniques. We try to take all these factors into account. In my original answer I indicated all the principal considerations. There are no Chilean students under training in Service establishments.

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that staff courses, and particularly senior staff courses, are often more effective when they are confined to British nationals, since discussion and criticism can be more uninhibited?

Mr. Pym: While I am sure that that is true, it does also seem to be the case that our defence is strengthened by widening our training capabilities for military

personnel of other countries. That does not mean to say that all courses, or all staff college courses, apply to countries other than our own. I take the right hon. Gentleman's point.

Mr. Duffy: Will the Secretary of State confirm that the Armed Forces do not seek such candidates for their training courses and that they are sometimes embarrassed by the numbers who apply? Will he also confirm that there has been no relaxation in the criteria governing such entrants?

Mr. Pym: There has been no such relaxation. The applications for courses continue at a high level because our training capability is regarded very highly around the world. Very often we have a choice of students, and we make that choice on the basis that I gave in my original answer.

French Minister of Defence

Sir Anthony Meyer: asked the Secretary of State for Defence what discussions he has had with the French Minister of Defence regarding European co-operation in defence matters

Mr. Pym: Monsieur Bourges visited me in London on 28 January, and we discussed current strategic issues of concern to the West and defence equipment topics, including collaborative projects.

Sir A. Meyer: Does my right hon. Friend agree that there are possibilities of limited, although real, extensions of co-operation in this field between Britain and France for the benefit of this country's defence and the improvement of Anglo-French relations?

Mr. Pym: I certainly would say that. Links between France and NATO have been strengthened in the last five years, and French participation in joint exercises has grown. I am encouraged by those closer links, and am doing what I can further to encourage them.

Oral Answers to Questions — PRIME MINISTER (ENGAGEMENTS)

Mr. Shersby: asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 12 February.

The Prime Minister (Mrs. Margaret Thatcher): In addition to my duties in this House, I shall be having meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. This evening I hope to have an audience of Her Majesty the Queen.

Mr. Shersby: Will my right hon Friend take time during her busy day to convey a message to the water workers, urging them to seek a moderate and sensible pay settlement? Will she also convey to them that strike action to shut off the nation's water supply and endanger sewage treatment cannot be tolerated?

The Prime Minister: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. Already, most of us believe that water charges are very high and I hope that those who are demanding more will remember that that "more" will have to be met by people who have far less than a large number of the workers themselves.

Mr. Robert C. Brown: Does the Prime Minister understand that the workers in the water industry are simply trying to recoup for themselves what they have lost because of the raging inflation that has been created by this Government's policies?

The Prime Minister: The hon. Member knows that the amount which has been offered is in excess of the retail price index, even taking account of the increase in VAT which occurred last July. Those pay increases will go through into the increased price of water. I do not know what the hon. Member's postbag contains, but in mine there are already a large number of complaints about the high water rate.

Mr. Kenneth Carlisle: Will the Prime Minister take time to consider the plight of the engineering industry? Is she aware that many engineering companies will soon run short of steel, even though stocks of steel still exist? Have the Government any plans to ensure that pressed steel can reach those companies which need it?

The Prime Minister: So far, as my hon. Friend knows, most of industry has coped extremely well, in spite of the shortage of steel. One of the factors which those on strike must consider is the effect of their strike on their fellow workers in other industries. I hope that that will weigh

heavily with them in the decisions they take to get back around the negotiating table.

Mr. Guy Barnett: Will the Prime Minister ask the Secretary of State for the Environment to send a circular to all local authorities containing the text of a model speech which may be made in council chambers and which can be sure not to incur the displeasure of the Secretary of State and, therefore, the use of penal sanctions against local authorities?

The Prime Minister: No, I do not like too many circulars.

Mr. Moate: Will the Prime Minister consider inviting the Leader of the Opposition to join her in sending a message of congratulations to the employees of the Sheerness Steel Company on the Isle of Sheppey, who have refused to be intimidated by mass picketing and who have democratically asserted their right to carry on working, despite some pretty unpleasant experiences inflicted upon them by some pickets from outside? Is she aware that their courage and determination have earned the respect and admiration of the whole local community?

The Prime Minister: The workers in Sheerness have rightly exercised their lawful right to go about their business and to continue to earn their living for themselves and for their families. I do, indeed, congratulate them. It is notable that private sector steel, existing in the same world as the British Steel Corporation, is able to make a profit and to contribute to the cost of health, education and all the other things of which we want more in this country.

Mr. McElhone: asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 12 February.

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Member to the reply which I have just given.

Mr. McElhone: Will the Prime Minister take time today to study the financial crisis at the Royal Hospital for Sick Children, Glasgow? Is she aware that children's lives are at risk there because lack of finance is jeopardising life-saving operations? Is she also aware that Dr. McAllister, a doctor in that hospital, has


said that what the Government are doing verges on cruelty? Will the right hon. Lady tell the House how her Government's mean and contemptible economic policy can, on the one hand, give tax handouts to the rich taxpayer and, on the other, threaten the lives of children in my constituency and other constituencies in Scotland?

The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman knows that, in general the amount of money, in real terms, allocated to the National Health Service has not been reduced. Indeed, this Government had to increase the cash limit to provide for increased pay to the nurses and the National Health Service auxiliaries. With regard to that particular hospital, the hon. Gentleman was kind enough to send me a letter indicating his concern. We understand from the health board that there has been no cut in the financial allocation that it has made to the hospital.

Mr. William Shelton: Has my right hon. Friend heard the result of the Leyland ballot in which the workers have apparently refused to accept the pay offer? What result does my right hon. Friend think this will have on the future of the company and its car sales?

The Prime Minister: I hope, naturally, that the workers will not take industrial action. That ballot was not to take industrial action. British Leyland has severe problems on its hands in view of its high stocks and the inability to finance any more stocks. As my hon. Friend knows, about £1,000 million of public money has already gone into British Leyland. I hope that, in view of their excellent production record last month, everyone will together consider how to go forward and get the company back into profitability.

Mr. Stephen Ross: If the right hon. Lady is sending messages, will she send one of congratulations to the firemen in my constituency and along the South Coast who are having to deal with a dirty job, namely the chemicals coming ashore from a ship called the "Aeolian Sky"? Many of my constituents are worried about what is happening. The problem has almost caused fatalities. Will she instruct her right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade to take action quickly to deal with the wreck?

The Prime Minister: I know of the great concern that exists if pollution from ships comes ashore. I shall contact my right hon. Friend.

Mr. Stanbrook: asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 12 February.

The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply which I gave earlier.

Mr. Stanbrook: Has my right hon. Friend seen the suggestion that the profit-making private sector of the steel industry should take over some of the assets of British Steel and show it how to operate with the good will of its workers and at a profit?

The Prime Minister: It is noteworthy that the private sector of steel is operating at a profit in the same world in which the British Steel Corporation is making very heavy losses. There would be no objection whatever by the Government if the British Steel Corporation wished to sell off some of its plant that might otherwise be closed. Indeed, I think, it would be an excellent solution.

Mr. John Home Robertson: Before the right hon. Lady says more about water workers, will she comment on the circular issued by the Scottish Office suggesting that local authorities such as the Borders regional council should discharge raw sewage into the river Tweed in order to save public expenditure?

The Prime Minister: No, Sir.

Mr. Garel-Jones: Will my right hon. Friend take time to consider the case of a member of my union, ASTMS, working as a nurse in British Steel who has felt obliged to resign her job after pressure exerted on her after refusing to contribute to strike funds? Does she not agree that incidents of this kind bring the trade union movement into disrepute and make it doubly difficult for the Government to proceed with their moderate proposals for trade union reform?

The Prime Minister: I agree that incidents of that kind bring the trade union movement into disrepute. They demonstrate the need for this Government to strengthen the law and get ahead with trade union reform.

Mr. Dubs: Will the Prime Minister find time today to confirm that her Government have no intention of giving extra Government time to the Abortion (Amendment) Bill nor to extend any Friday sitting beyond the usual time for that purpose?

The Prime Minister: I understand that we are likely to be on that subject for one more Friday yet or perhaps more.

Mr. Trippier: Has my right hon. Friend seen recent press reports that certain people have been claiming social security benefits to which they have not been entitled? Will she confirm that early Government action will be taken to curb this waste of taxpayers' money?

The Prime Minister: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services is trying to make certain that people do not get social security benefits to which they are not entitled. It should be made clear that those who take them fraudulently are reducing the amount of money available for those in genuine need.

Mr. Newens: asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 12 February.

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Member to the reply which I gave earlier.

Mr. Newens: Will the Prime Minister take urgent steps, including consulting the front-line Presidents, to seek to make sure that Lord Soames no longer has to rely on the forces of the previous Rhodesian Administration and is, thus, able to avoid arrests such as that of Garfield Todd and many others which endangering the ceasefire and may lead to the sort of breakdown that many of us have feared? Is he aware that this could produce a blood-bath which I am sure all Members of the House would regard with horror?

The Prime Minister: The arrest of Mr. Garfield Todd is a matter for the police and I cannot comment upon it. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] Of course, I cannot comment on it. The arrest of Mr. Todd is a matter for the police and the law must take its ordinary course. The actions of Lord Soames, who is Governor of Rhodesia at present, are governed by the Lancaster House agreement and he is sticking to that.

Mr. Alexander: Will my right hon. Friend take time, in the course of today, to reflect that on the Order Paper there are no fewer than four early-day motions affecting the future of rural post offices? Does she agree that the Government ought not automatically to take on board every half-baked idea from their advisers which would affect millions of the under-privileged in this country without the fullest debate and decision in this House?

The Prime Minister: Any suggestions of this magnitude would be submitted to full debate and decision of the House, but not all ideas are half-baked and some of the half-baked ones can be fully-baked.

Mr. Allan Roberts: Will the Prime Minister take time today to reassure the people of Merseyside, who are being made redundant, and to say when her economic policies will allow the entrepreneurs, who are supposed to have been released from the shackles of high taxation by the last Budget, to start investing in Merseyside? Is the right hon. Lady aware that the Government-inspired amendments to the County of Merseyside Bill [Lords], which will come before the House on Thursday, have been designed to take away the powers of Merseyside county council to encourage industrial investment in Merseyside? Will she see that those amendments are withdrawn?

The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman has raised a general point about investment and increasing the role of small business. This country is getting through because of the vitality of many businesses in the private sector that are making profits. If they were not, we should not have the resources either for health or education or for the vast loss-making nationalised industries that need an ever-increasing amount of money.

Mr. Cyril D. Townsend: Will my right hon. Friend find time today to look at the plans for the future of the Commonwealth monitoring force in Rhodesia? Bearing in mind the rising tide of violence, has it not become imperative that those soldiers should be withdrawn after the votes have been cast, but before the result is known?

The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend knows that the soldiers are there to monitor and not in any way to keep order.


The order is kept by virtue of the Governor requesting the forces to go where there is any report of disorder, but I do not think it would be wise to give any undertaking now about the future of the monitoring force.

Mr. James Callaghan: In view of the Prime Minister's well-deserved tribute to the small businesses of this country, may I ask whether she is aware that the Secretary of State for Employment made a speech recently in which he said that the biggest handicap from which those businesses had to suffer was a 17 per cent. minimum lending rate? What has gone wrong with her monetary policy?

The Prime Minister: The fact that we had a very high increase in public expenditure this last year—[Interruption.] Surely the former Chancellor of the Exchequer the right hon. Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey) is not arguing with that. It is a matter of fact. It is in the public expenditure White Paper. As the Leader of the Opposition knows, we have had to attempt to reduce that expenditure. When it is reduced and when we can get the borrowing down, interest rates will come down. As I have said to the right hon. Gentleman so many times, we shall be grateful for his support. There seems to be some competition between the Leader of the Opposition and the former Chancellor of the Exchequer.

Mr. James Callaghan: As minimum lending rate was put up to 15 per cent. in June, when the Chancellor of the Exchequer told us that it would be only a few weeks before it came down again, what has gone wrong with the Government's policy, now that we have had a record MLR of 17 per cent. for two months? Is the Prime Minister proud of herself?

The Prime Minister: First, it was 14 per cent. and not 15 per cent.

Let that 1 per cent pass. These 1 per cents. never seem to concern the right hon. Gentleman. He does not care a tuppenny damn about some of them. Never mind.
We need to get public spending down further, as the right hon. Gentleman knows, and the process of a nation which has been living beyond its means coming to live within its means is a distinctly uncomfortable one. We shall pursue the policy of reducing public spending as a proportion of the national income.

Mr. James Callaghan: So that means that small businesses can expect no help at all from the Government?

The Prime Minister: On the contrary. It means that this Government are the only one who are likely to pursue a policy that brings the nation to live within its means—a policy totally rejected by the Labour Party.

STANDING ORDERS (BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE)

Mr. Speaker: Yesterday, the hon. Member for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop) raised a point of order concerning private business procedure. I have given careful consideration to the substantial points that he made in his statement to the House.
Private business Standing Orders, which regulate the details of Private Bill procedures, have, as the hon. Gentleman reminded us, always been treated as an aspect of private business. It would be no light matter for me to change this long-established practice of the House.
In my judgment, it is the House itself which ought to decide the matter on a motion if it is felt that such a change as the hon. Gentleman indicated is necessary.

ADOPTION (SCOTLAND)

Mr. Allen Adams (Paisley): I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to amend the law relating to adoption of children in Scotland; and for connected purposes.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I think that it would be fairer to the hon. Gentleman if I asked him to wait for a moment. Will hon. Members who are leaving the Chamber please do so as quickly and quietly as possible?

Mr. Adams: Let me say at the outset that this is not a party political matter. Indeed, I have received support for the Bill from hon. Members on both sides of the House. I am sure that men of good will, irrespective of their political views, would give support to easing the plight of so many children who are in the care of local authorities.
A colleague of mine in Glasgow once said that in order to adopt a child in Scotland one needed the wealth of Onassis, the wisdom of Solomon and the strength of Hercules. That was an exaggeration, but it is no exaggeration to say that there are many obstacles in the path of prospective adopters in Scotland. That is a tragedy when we consider how many totally innocent children, especially older children aged between 8 and 15, we have in the care of local authorities in Scotland.
The object of the Bill is to remove one small obstacle from the path of prospective adopters. I do not pretend that the Bill will change the world or remove all the obstacles in the path of prospective adopters, but I hope that it will remove one small one.
I also hope that the Bill will bring to the attention of the House and the public the plight of so many unfortunate children. In Strathclyde alone, with a population of 2½ million—representing about one-half of the population of Scotland—we have 5,000 children in the care of local authorities. That figure is not untypical of the figures in the rest of Scotland and Great Britain. Of those 5,000 children, about 3,000 are in residential establishments—children's homes. That is a terrible indictment of contemporary society and of the uncaring, un-

feeling and selfish attitude that is abroad in society.
I hope that the House will support the Bill to show that we care about those children and firmly stand by the principle that they, like all other children, have the right to enjoy the love and affection of parents and the stability of a normal home background.
There are three basic and, I hope, simple points to make in connection with the Bill. First, I want to remove the financial burden put on prospective adopters by the legal costs of adoption in Scotland. Most lawyers in Scotland, like those in other parts of the United Kingdom, are reasonable people and legal costs generally amount to £100 or £150. However, as a former chairman of the Strathclyde adoption committee, I know of instances where lawyers have charged £400 or £500 to present a petition to the sheriff court on behalf of prospective adopters. Clearly, that must be stopped.
In addition, a couple wanting to adopt a child are not covered by the National Health Service. They have to pay a fee of £25 or £30 to their general practitioner, although, again, there are one or two rogues who charge as much as £100. That must also be stopped. A petitioner must also pay the statutory fee of about £25 to the curator ad litem.
While the average cost of adoption in Scotland is probably £150 to £200, there are many instances in which costs can go as high as £500 or £600. There are many examples of that. Clearly it is a barrier, a break, an obstacle to ordinary people who apply to adopt a child. One could go down any street, in any of the cities, towns and villages of Scotland and ask people whether they thought that adoption was cheap, or whether it was reasonable, or whether they could afford it. The consensus would be that the average person could not afford adoption.
The proof of the pudding is in the eating. There are still 3,000 children in the care of local authorities in Scotland who have not seen the outside of a children's home for five or 10 years. That is intolerable. The House must rule that adoption should be available to all people, irrespective of their means.
I hope that the House will adopt the Bill and not simply make noises about


it. I hope that we are determined enough to stretch out a hand to those 3,000 children in Strathclyde and to the 2,000 or 3,000 children in other parts of Scotland. I hope that we shall not merely talk about it. I hope—unlike what happens in the case of most Ten-Minute Bills—that we shall give some weight and time to this important legislation and ensure that it is enacted. At the end of the day, if it takes only one child out of care it will be worth it.
I specifically propose that there should be a £50 limit on the fees charged by solicitors. In other words, there should be a charge of not more than £50 for presenting a petition to the sheriff court.
I also suggest that medical fees should be borne by the National Health Service. At present, a person has to pay a fee to a general practitioner when he is examined as a prospective adopter. I should also like the local authority to bear the cost of the curator ad litem.
Those are three basic, simple points. They will not change the world, but they will make life a little easier for one or two children.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Allen Adams, Mr. Raymond Ellis, Mr. Ron Brown, Mr. Harry Greenway, Mr. William McKelvey, Mr. Michael Ancram, Mr. Ernie Ross, Mr. John Maxton, Mr. Norman Buchan, Mr. Andy McMahon, Mr. Michael Martin and Mr. Norman Hogg.

ADOPTION (SCOTLAND)

Mr. Allen Adams accordingly presented a Bill to amend the law relating to adoption of children in Scotland; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 14 March and to be printed. [Bill 145.]

EDUCATION (No. 2) BILL (ALLOCATION OF TIME)

Mr. Beith: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Before you put the motion on the allocation of time and the report of the Business Committee, will you inform the House by what means the report of the Business Committee of 11 February is made available to it. It is not available in the Vote Office.

Mr. Speaker: I understand that it is on the back of the Notice Paper that was published this morning. Like me, the hon. Gentleman looks to the front.

EDUCATION (No. 2) BILL (BUSINESS COMMITTEE)

Ordered,

That the Report [11 February] of the Business Committee be now considered.—[Mr. Mark Carlisle.]

Report considered accordingly.

Question, That this House doth agree with the Committee in their resolution, put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 43 (Business Committee) and agreed to.

Following is the Report of the Business Committee:

That the following provisions shall have effect in substitution for the provisions of the Resolution of the Committee that was reported to the House on 7th February—

(1) the order in which proceedings on consideration are taken shall be New Clauses, amendments to Clause 1, Schedule 1, Clauses 2 to 7, Schedule 2, Clauses 8 to 16, Schedule 3, Clause 17, Schedule 4, Clauses 18 and 19, Schedule 5, Clauses 20 to 22, Clause 24, Clause 23, Clause 25, Clauses 26 to 31, Schedule 6, Clauses 32 to 37 and Schedule 7 and New Schedules;
(2) the allotted days which under the Orders [29th January and 11th February] are given to the proceedings on consideration and Third Reading shall be allotted in the manner shown in the Table setout below and, subject to the provisions of those Orders, each part of the proceedings shall, if not previously brought to a conclusion, be brought to a conclusion at the time specified in the third column of that Table.

TABLE

Allotted day, proceedings and time for conclusion of proceedings

First day

New Clauses, 8.30 p.m.

Amendments up to the end of Schedule 2, 10 p.m.

Amendments up to the end of Schedule 3, 11 p.m.

Amendments up to the end of Clause 18, 2 a.m.

Second day

Amendments up to the end of Clause 24, 6.30 p.m.

Amendments up to the end of Clause 25, 9.30 p.m.

Remaining proceedings on consideration, 11 p.m.

Third Reading, Midnight.

Orders of the Day — EDUCATION (No. 2) BILL

[FIRST ALLOTTED DAY]

As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.

New Clause 1

NURSERY EDUCATION: ENGLAND AND WALES

'(1) A local education authority shall have power to establish nursery schools, to maintain such schools established by them or a former authority and to assist any such school which is not so established.
(2) A local education authority shall not by virtue of section 8 of the Education Act 1944 be under any duty in respect of junior pupils who have not attained the age of five years but this subsection shall not effect the power of an authority under section 9(1) of that Act to establish, maintain or assist a school at which education is provided both for such pupils and older pupils, including a school at which there is a nursery class for such junior pupils as aforesaid.'—[Mr. Mark Carlisle.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

The Secretary of State for Education and Science (Mr. Mark Carlisle): I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take the following:

Sub-amendment (b), in subsection (2), leave out "five" and insert "four".

Sub-amendment (a), in subsection (2), at end add—
'(3) A local education authority shall not charge for any education in nursery schools or classes'.

Sub-amendment (c), in subsection (2), at end add—
'(3) This section shall not take effect earlier than 4th May 1984.'.

Sub-amendment (d), in subsection (2), at end add—

'(3) A local education authority shall provide nursery education for any child in its area where
(a) his family is in receipt of supplementary benefit or family income supplement; or
(b) he is the child of a one-parent family; or
(c) his family is in receipt of an income below that prescribed as a qualification for nursery education by the Secretary of State in regulations.'

New clause 2—Nursery education: Scotland—
'(1) An education authority shall have power to provide for their area school education in nursery schools and nursery classes.
(2) The duties of an education authority under section 1 of the Education (Scotland) Act 1962 shall not apply in relation to the provision of school education in nursery schools and nursery classes.
(3) This section applies to Scotland only.'.

Sub-amendment (a), at end add
'(4) An education authority may not charge for any education in nursery schools or nursery classes.'

Government amendments Nos. 62, 63, 20.

Amendment No. 90, in clause 12, page 13, line 23, at end insert—
'(10) The Secretary of State shall not approve any proposal to cease to maintain any nursery school or to make a significant change in the character of a county school by the closure of a nursery class thereat, where such nursery school or class is in existence at the passing of this Act, unless the local education authority proposes also to make satisfactory alternative provisions in nursery schools or classes, as the case may be'.

Government amendments, Nos. 62, 63, 64, 73 and 78.

Mr. Carlisle: This new clause and the amendments deal generally with the provision of nursery education in England, Wales and Scotland. They are important. It is because of their importance that the Opposition asked that the timetable motion should be amended to allow further time for discussion—a request to which the Government were happy to accede. It is also the cause of our having an extra two hours to debate the Report stage of the Bill.
Taken as a whole, the effect of the new clause and the amendments is to make clear that local education authorities in England and Wales have a power but not a duty to provide education for those children who are under compulsory school age. At the same time, they provide that where separate nursery schools exist they cannot be closed other than


by the use of what was known as section 13 procedure—clause 12 of the Bill—namely, the publication of the intention to close and the opportunity for local people to object.
Finally, since the intention of the main clause is to make clear that there is a power but not a duty on local education authorities to provide education, equally it converts into a power the duty applied in the Act for one local education authority to pay another authority if that other authority is providing education for a child.
That is the purpose of the new clause and the group of amendments. Taken together, these provisions are not intended as, nor should they be taken as, a reduction of interest by the Government in the provision of education for children under 5 years of age. We are still anxious that local education authorities should make as much provision of education as possible, consistent with the available resources.
I should like to explain to the House the reason why the Government consider it necessary to bring forward the new clause and the amendments. The House will remember that during the course of last year the Oxfordshire county council proposed to close all the nursery schools and nursery classes then provided in the county by a later date, and instead to replace that provision with an alternative provision of education for children under 5 years of age. The chief education officer was asked to put forward a scheme for consideration by the council.
The resolution passed by the Oxfordshire county council started a good deal of controversy, particularly on the question whether or not the county council was able to do that, and whether there was a duty or merely a power to provide education for children under 5. The Department of Education and Science had already examined the legal requirements relating to nursery education. It is clear that over the years—certainly until some people had the benefit of hindsight—everyone accepted that the provision for nursery education was a discretionary power for local education authorities. It is equally clear that there is a statutory duty to provide schools for children under 5, but it is also a fact that that statutory duty is extremely unclear.

Mr. A. J. Beith: The Secretary of State said that everyone assumed otherwise. There is one exception—Lord Butler. He said clearly that it was his intention to make it a duty for local education authorities to provide nursery education. He said that those provisions were written into the proposed measure in 1943. It is now 1980–37 years later.

Mr. Carlisle: What I said was that until I announced the intention to put forward the new clause, no one—that is why I referred to the benefit of hindsight—had said that there was other than a discretion. I do not thnk that even the noble Lord, the framer of the Act, had publicly announced previously what he said after I published these amendments with regard to the power.
There is a statutory duty to provide education for children under 5 but the statutory duty is extremely unclear I should like to explain to the House what I mean by that. The provisions with regard to the duty on local education authorities to provide education for those of compulsory school age are to be found in section 8 of the Education Act 1944. Those powers provide that
It shall be the duty of every local authority to secure that there shall be available for their area sufficient schools".
Under that provision, sufficient schools have to be made available
for providing primary education, that is to say, full-time education suitable to the requirements of junior pupils".
That duty is clear, and is specifically laid down in terms of the provision to provide sufficient primary schools for the area. That duty is defined by saying that the primary schools shall provide
full-time education suitable to the requirements of junior pupils".
When we look for the definition of a junior pupil, it is apparent that the duty applies to those under 5 as well as to those over 5, since the only definition of a junior pupil is any pupil under the age of 12.
But since there is a duty to provide sufficient schools for children under 5 as well as over 5, and since there is no requirement on parents of children under 5 to send their children to school, it is impossible to say what that level of provision would be held to be.

Mr. Christopher Price: Does the right hon. and learned


Gentleman agree that the same position exists with further education, and that although there is no compulsory requirement to receive further education there is still a duty laid upon local authorities to provide further education? In that sense, the position governing further education and that governing nursery school education are absolutely evenhanded. To cut out the provision for nursery school education would therefore be quite illogical. There is no problem with further education. Why should there be one with nursery education?

Mr. Carlisle: I do not accept that argument. I was trying to explain why I believe that it has come about that, although there is a duty of the kind provided in the 1944 Act, no one has ever looked at or debated the matter of nursery education other than in the terms of there being a general power. We are dealing with children below compulsory school age and there is no requirement on the parents to send such children to school. Although there is a general requirement to provide sufficient schools, it is impossible to say what the level of provision should be.

Several Hon. Members: Several Hon. Members rose—

Mr. Carlisle: I should like to proceed a little further on this aspect, otherwise I shall be accused of giving way too often and of taking up too much time.
Equally, there is clearly no duty, nor has there ever been a duty—although this has been misunderstood by many people—either to provide nursery schools or education in nursery classes. The only reference to nursery schools or to classes is that which provides that the authorities, in carrying out their duty to provide sufficient schools for those under 5, should have regard—it goes further than that—to the need for securing it by the provision of nursery schools.
The legal position, is that there is a duty to provide sufficient schools to meet the educational demands of the people in the area, but clearly there is no duty to attend the school. There is also no duty as to what form of school it should be, whether a primary or a nursery school or a nursery class. There is a responsibility, in carrying out that duty, merely to have regard to the possibility of nursery schools.

Mr. Neil Kinnock: If no specific duty is imposed, how was it that Lord Hailsham came to the conclusion, when he was Minister of Education in 1957, that the county of Somerset had a duty to provide, and has had to sustain that duty ever since?

Mr. Carlisle: The hon. Gentleman is quite right. The one exception to my statement—that the whole of the debate has gone on the basis that it was a power and not a duty—was when Somerset announced its intention to do what Oxfordshire announced its intentions to do, namely, to close its schools. It was pointed out to Somerset—the papers have since been looked at—that it was the view of the Department, and has always been the legal view within the Department—although perhaps I should not mention it here—that there is a duty. It was the conveyance of that view to Somerset that made Somerset change its mind about what it intended to do.
The problem is the imprecision of the duty. In many cases it is felt that only the courts can decide. Other than in the case of the warning to Somerset at the earlier stage, there has never been any attempt to enforce the duty upon any local education authority. The whole debate has continued on the general assumption that there is merely a discretionary power.
I do not believe that a lack of clarity surrounding this duty would help anyone other than, perhaps, members of my own profession, who might earn considerable sums in arguing in every case what was meant by the necessary degree of provision in an area where there is no duty on the parent to ensure that the child attends school.

Mr. Nigel Spearing: When the Secretary of State quoted the part of the Act relating to the fulfilling of the duties, he did not state that he was quoting from section 8 (2). In that subsection. paragraph (b) relates to where the pupils have not attained the age of 5 years, but paragraph (c) refers to
the need for securing that provision is made for pupils who suffer from any disability of mind or body".
Is the Secretary of State now saying that if a local authority does not wish to pursue the provision of special schools, it should have the option so to do?


Surely he agrees that the wording in the Act is precisely the same for each sort of school.

Mr. Carlisle: Yes, but I am saying that there should be a clear duty on local authorities to provide sufficient schools for children of compulsory school age who need special schools, in exactly the same way as there is a duty on local authorities to make provision for primary or secondary schools. The words that the hon. Gentleman read out show that the duty does not necessarily have to be carried out by providing special schools. It can be done by saying that there will be places in the ordinary schools. But in carrying out their duty to those who have illnesses, mental or physical, the authorities are required to have regard to the need for special schools.
I was saying that there has never been an attempt to enforce the provision. I do not believe that it is wise to leave the law unclear on this matter. It is necessary to make it clear, and in the amendments I am attempting to bring the law into line with what it was always thought to be.
Whatever the framers of the 1944 Act intended—I refer now to Lord Butler—there is no doubt that, under pressure of resources those intentions have not been carried out. In fact, the education for those under 5, which existed on a considerable basis at the time of the passing of the 1944 Act, as a result of having been provided during wartime, then began to wither away, and that process continued for the next 20 years. It was not until 1966, following the report of the Plowden committee, that interest in nursery school education appears to have been revised as a matter of public debate.
As the House will know, the Plowden committee recommended that education for children below the age of 5 should be available to all those who wish for it. The committee considered that that meant a provision for 90 per cent. of children of the age of 4, and for 50 per cent. of those of the age of 3 although largely on a part-time basis.
4 pm
It was six years later, in 1972, that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, when she was Secretary of State for Education and Science, first turned that

recommendation into a commitment in her White Paper "Education: A Framework for Expansion". It was the commitment of the Government at that time that those targets—if I may put it that way—set by the Plowden committee should be reached by 1982.
Under pressure of shortage of resources, there is no doubt that the target figures for the expansion of the education of under-fives have long since been abandoned. The nursery school building programme for which my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister provided when she was Secretary of State for Education and Science was reduced rapidly. It was implemented for two years, it was halved for the year 1976–77, and that half was divided by a further two-thirds for 1977–78. What had been a building provision of £21½ million in 1974 had fallen to a building provision of £2·7 million by 1977–78.
The rate support grant circular put out by the previous Labour Administration for the years 1976–77 and 1977–78 specifically advocated restricting the number of under-fives going to schools as a means to cut expenditure. At present we have about 650 nursery schools, about 4,400 nursery classes, with 19 per cent. of 3-year-olds and 4-year-olds in those schools or classes, and a further 20 per cent. of under-fives in the ordinary classes of primary schools. The figures and the reasons that I have given are intended not to make a purely party political point but to show that, however anxious both sides of the House may have been to meet the Plowden committee recommendations both have had to accept—when it came to the implementation—that it could be done only within the resources available. I do not believe that there is any point in keeping in existence a shadowy duty that is probably unenforceable and, in present circumstances unattainable.
The Government believe firmly in the value of nursery education for all young children, and that remains our long term aim. It is especially valuable for the handicapped and for those from disadvantaged backgrounds. They must have priority in the provision of resources in the short term. More than 70 per cent. of existing nursery provision is in areas social need. As a result of a provision made over the years through the urban


and inner city programmes, priority has always been given by the Department in its nursery building programme, to such areas.
The Government will continue to support nursery education projects in all these programmes. The allocation from the Department's 1980–81 nursery education building programme will be announced shortly.
We have provided within the 1980–81 rate support grant settlement for expenditure on under-fives, including those in primary schools, to remain at roughly the present level. While I cannot anticipate the expenditure White Paper for future years, I am confident that we shall be able to maintain a substantial provision for the under-fives, especially if local authorities can find ways of reducing the individual cost of educating a child.
That could be done. The House knows that, as a result of the drop in the number of children in primary schools, there is substantial vacant capacity or over-capacity in such schools. If local authorities could make use of those classrooms, released as a result of falling primary school rolls, it would be a means of providing for the education of the under-fives that could be achieved without the need for expensive adaptations. It has been put to me that the Department's regulations on the standards for school premises inhibit that, and I am asking my Department to consider whether they are too tough on nursery education premises.

Mr. Kinnock: Is not the probability of the fulfilment of that desirable end—of taking up places made vacant by the falling number of primary school rolls—diminished significantly by the removal of any form of direct responsibility which the right hon. and learned Gentleman is proposing in the new clause?
Another matter should be taken into account. There is a significant difference between a position in which the objectives of nursery place provision are not met because of shortages of resources—whether under a Conservative or a Labour Government—and a position in which the right hon. and learned Gentleman is actively removing any obligation being imposed upon local education authorities to make such provision. Does not the

latter position, which he is now introducing, change the whole nature of the Government's attitude towards the provision of nursery places?

Mr. Carlisle: I do not accept that. The provision that I have described, and the build-up that has taken place, has been at a period when the local education authorities thought that there was no statutory duty on them. It has not been suggested that they have been acting in the belief that there was a statutory duty rather than discretionary powers. We have found that a considerable number of local authorities have already put in bids against the nursery building programme for next year.
As hon. Members will know, I was asked by the Association of County Councils to consider the introduction of charges for nursery education, and my Department has examined carefully the implications of such a measure. While it is possibly true, as some argue, that a modest charge for nursery education could in some cases help to tip the scales against reducing existing provision, I do not believe that it would lead to the opening of new classes or schools or wider provision.
Clearly any scheme for charging for nursery education would have to exempt those in receipt of supplementary benefit and family income supplement. Any State scheme for the provision of education for under-fives would have to be subsidised and any extension of that provision, even with the right to charge, would lead inevitably to increased expenditure.
As I have said, 70 per cent. of the existing nursery provision is made in areas of special social need. I believe that any system of charging—limited as it would have to be in practice to nursery schools and classes rather than reception classes in primary schools—would bring in little income. It would risk depriving of nursery education children who are in the greatest need of its benefits. I have concluded, therefore, that in the present circumstances, it would not be right to introduce charging for nursery education.
The amendment proposed by the hon. Member for Stockport, North (Mr. Bennett) is otiose because under section 61 of the 1944 Act it is clear that no charging could be made unless I provide specifically for it in the Bill.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: I think that the Secretary of State said specifically that it would be illegal for any authority to charge for places in nursery schools or classes, and that there must be a change in the law to make that possible. Is that correct?

Mr. Carlisle: That is exactly what I am saying. Section 61 does not allow charging for State education.
I do not believe that changing the duty to provide education for the under-fives to a power will in itself cause any reduction in the provision of nursery education. If the resources cannot be made available, the existence of a statutory power will not, as I have attempted to show, do anything to increase that provision. Resources, and not whether it is a power or a duty, are the key.
It is certainly not my intention that this clause should be seen as an invitation to local authorities to abandon nursery education. The bids that we have received suggest that a substantial number of local authorities are anxious not only to maintain existing provision but to expand it, in spite of the present pressures on local authority finances.
I am, however, aware that one or two authorities are considering the closure of some or all of their nursery provision. While that is a course of action that would obviously be regretted, locally elected councillors must decide for themselves on these matters.

Mr. Kinnock: That would not be legal.

Mr. Carlisle: That would have been legal. I am, however, proposing to place one additional safeguard on such action. I propose to bring the closure of nursery schools within the scope of clause 12, which has not applied to nursery schools in the past. This amendment is an essential part of my overall proposals on nursery education.
The amendment to clause 12 is designed to ensure that, if a local education authority proposes to cease to maintain a nursery school, it shall be required, in precisely the same way as in the case of a primary or secondary school, to publish its proposal, giving two months for objections to be submitted. In fact, the full provisions of clause 12 will apply, and, unless there are no statutory objec-

tions, the decision to approve or reject the proposal will be taken by the Secretary of State as in the normal way.
I apologise for taking some time in explaining the effect of the new clauses, but I commend them and the amendments to the House.

Mrs. Ann Taylor: The Secretary of State rightly said that this was an important new clause. We think that it is one of the most important amendments that has been tabled, and we are disturbed that the right hon. and learned Gentleman has seen fit to seek to write in such an important new clause at this stage in our proceedings. Indeed, I suggest that it would have been more appropriate had the Secretary of State decided to introduce a completely separate Bill on this specific point, because the House does not have sufficient time to discuss this matter fully before the Bill makes further progress.
The new clause makes a fundamental change to the Education Act 1944. The Secretary of State tried to play down that change, and tried to argue that the new clause simply seeks to clarify the position. We do not think that that is the case. We believe that the new clause will have dramatic effects which the Secretary of State has refused to admit.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman also referred to the decision of Oxfordshire county council. Since this issue was raised, Oxfordshire county council has got a good deal of the blame for the fact that the Government have been considering a change in the law with regard to this clause. Oxfordshire decided that it would try to close its 12 nursery schools and 16 nursery classes, thus depriving 1,500 children of the right to nursery education.
We must remember why Oxfordshire felt it necessary to embark on that policy in the first place. It was not because people in Oxfordshire suddenly decided that nursery education was a bad thing. It was because the Secretary of State and his colleagues in the Cabinet decided that local authorities had to make substantial cuts in their expenditure. The pressure for this change came not simply from the county councils but from the Government themselves, and the Government should take responsibility for the changes that are now being introduced.
4.15 pm
The Secretary of State said a great deal about the need for clarifying the 1944 Act. Indeed, most of his speech concentrated on that point. If we look at what has been said over the last few weeks, we find that everyone agrees on what the 1944 Act meant. The legal advisers at the Department of Education and Science agreed. The Attorney-General agreed and Lord Butler agreed. Everyone is now convinced that the 1944 Act placed a duty on local education authorities to provide nursery education.
The fact that many local authorities failed to provide those facilities, because of lack of resources or for whatever reason, does not alter the meaning of the law. It seems that the law was quite clear. It is important to realise that the new clause does not clarify the law but changes it. That is what the Secretary of State has chosen to do.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman made light of the effects of this change. The first effect is that councils such as Oxfordshire county council will try to go ahead with their plans. Indeed, many others may try to follow them. They may attempt either to close all their nursery schools and classes or to reduce provision dramatically. From now on, there will be nothing in law to stop them doing so. The Secretary of State reminded us of his other amendments to the Bill which bring nursery provision within the scope of section 13 of the 1944 Act. I think he will agree that that is a modified section 13, given the other changes that he is proposing in the Bill.
The Secretary of State expects to be reassured by this proposal and by his other amendments, but I do not believe that they are reassuring at all. First, it has never been thought necessary to have a procedure for closing nursery schools, because it has never been previously considered possible that local authorities would embark upon the wholesale closure of such schools. It is only because local authorities are now proposing to do so that the new power is needed by the Secretary of State.
The other more important reason why we cannot get any reassurance from the Secretary of State's other amendments is that, to have any effect, section 13 would have to be used effectively by him. The

Secretary of State will have to be prepared to say to Oxfordshire county council "No, you cannot close your nursery schools or nursery classes". Neither this afternoon nor on any other occasion has the right hon. and learned Gentleman said whether he intends to allow local authorities to cut back their provision.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: My hon. Friend has just said that the Secretary of State had to make up his mind about whether he would give permission for the closure of nursery schools or classes. I listened fairly carefully, and I do not think that the Secretary of State actually said that in order to close a nursery class one needed to go through this procedure. That is one of the most worrying and disturbing aspects of this matter, because most of the expansion of nursery education over recent years has been in the provision of classes. I think that that leaves a major loophole, because classes can be dispensed with without any safeguard whatever. I hope that my hon. Friend will press that point further.

Mrs. Taylor: My hon. Friend has raised an important point, and the Secretary of State is confirming that what he has said is correct. If the right hon. and learned Gentleman was so keen to clarify the law on this issue, I am surprised that he did not refer to the situation in nursery classes, because they will almost be left in limbo between the nursery schools and the infants' schools of which they are part.

Mr. Mark Carlisle: I was careful to say that the provision related only to nursery schools. I considered the question of nursery classes. The nursery class is merely another class within the primary school system, in most cases. Frankly, I do not think that section 13 is the appropriate procedure.

Mrs. Taylor: Does that mean that the Secretary of State will sit back and watch local authorities closing nursery classes, if that is what they decide, without intervening?

Mr. Carlisle: Under the provision the local authorities would be free to close nursery classes if they wished.
Had I not brought in these powers, under the existing 1944 Act there was no reason to prevent Oxfordshire from


closing its existing nursery schools without coming to me. Therefore, to suggest that Oxfordshire could not have done it previously but that it now can is quite wrong.

Mrs. Taylor: What the Secretary of State said does not comply with what the Attorney-General said about the Oxfordshire position. Even so, that was not the point that I put to him. He says now that he has new powers under section 13 to prevent the closure of nursery schools. I asked the Minister whether he was willing to give an assurance that he would not approve the wholesale break-up of nursery education in any area. Will the Minister say "No, you cannot abandon nursery education", or will he stand by what he said about the situation in Somerset? Somerset asked whether it could close its remaining schools. The Minister was reported as saying that, although he would regret a decision by the LEA to close the schools, he would not invoke his statutory powers to enforce his view. That is the report of the situation that arose when Somerset sought advice from the Department. Will the Minister stand by his previous statement, or will he give us an assurance that he will not allow any authority completely to abandon nursery education in its area? That is an important point. If the Minister will not use his new powers under section 13, why does he want them?

Mr. Carlisle: As the hon. Lady will realise, I cannot give an assurance in the terms that she requests. I can give the assurance that, in normal section 13 procedure, every individual case for a closure must be publicised. There will be an opportunity for people to object. The case must be considered on its merits.

Mrs. Taylor: But at the end of the day the Secretary of State must make a decision whether to allow a local authority to close its nursery schools. The House would have been reassured if he had said that in general he was against local authorities closing nursery schools. He has not gone as far as that. We should welcome information about the criteria that the Secretary of State would use when he makes these decisions. Indeed, we should welcome more information about the Minister's general attitude towards nursery education. He made

some bland statements this afternoon about being in favour of it. However, there is now doubt about how enthusiastic the Government are about nursery education.
The Secretary of State referred to his right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and the contribution that she made to the improvement of nursery education. We heard a great deal about the Prime Minister's enthusiasm for nursery education, not only in the White Paper, to which the Minister referred, but in parliamentary debates and statements such as this:
an historic step forward; giving new opportunities to parents.
A great deal of elaborate language was used at that time by his right hon. Friend, but all that bold talk led to very little.
We are now concerned about what is happening to Conservative policy on nursery education. We have been considering some of the statements made over the past few years in Conservative Party manifestos. There has been a great deal of change of emphasis and a reduction of keenness on nursery education. This is alarming. In February 1974 the Conservative Party made a direct commitment:
We shall…extend free nursery schooling throughout the country.
That was bold and direct. By October 1974 the Conservative Party had slightly modified that commitment. Instead of promising to provide such education, it recognised the need for it. By the time that it came to the writing of "The Right Approach", the Conservative Party thought that there should be special assistance for deprived children. By the time of the 1979 manifesto there was little talk of nursery education—simply the note that every child should have the chance to progress. That is where the Secretary of State now leaves the situation.

Mr. Carlisle: From 1974 until 1979 the then Labour Government reduced their provision for nursery education from £21½ million a year to £2·7 million a year, and specifically advised local authorities, as a way of reducing expenditure, to reduce the numbers of under-fives they took into their schools.

Mrs. Taylor: We are greatly touched by the Secretary of State's deep concern.


However, the majority of local authorities that refused to take up their nursery allocations were Conservative controlled and, by and large, Labour local authorities have a far better record on nursery expenditure than do Tory local authorities.

Mr. Martin Flannery: Is it not a fact that about two years ago Mrs. Shirley Williams, the then Secretary of State, gave figures in this Chamber showing that 80 per cent. of Conservative councils had failed to take up their allocations for nursery provision?

Mrs. Taylor: That is a fact. Indeed, some Labour local authorities tried to take up their allocations in their place. That is why so many Labour authorities were able to do something in terms of expanding nursery education.
We were talking about the progress, or lack of it, of Conservative philosophy on nursery education. I think that last October the Secretary of State, in reply to a question, stated that he hoped to be able, over the coming year, to increase the number of nursery places available in this country. We were slightly surprised because the Secretary of State said that he would increase the number of nursery places although reducing expenditure on nursery education. We are now waiting for the Secretary of State to tell us that abolishing a legal obligation to provide nursery education will also result in more places.
If the Secretary of State were concerned about nursery education he would not be introducing this new clause at this stage. He said that he was in favour of nursery education but said little about the dangers of the clause. He said little about the damage that would be done if the clause were passed and local authorities took advantage of it.
Does the Secretary of State realise the hardship that would be caused by a reduction in nursery education? Does he believe in the educational and social value of nursery education? Does he agree it is important that children from deprived backgrounds can take advantage of this better start in education? If he does, he cannot go ahead with the clause or allow local authorities to close their nursery schools.
4.30pm
The clause has been introduced to allow local education authorities to save money, but this is a false economy. Unless children get a good start in life more problems will be created both inside and outside the education service. We are concerned about what will happen in practical terms if local authorities take advantage of the clause. Some local authorities will close nursery schools. What will happen then to the buildings and the outstanding loans on them? Will the buildings be hired out to groups who want to run private nurseries? The demand will still exist. If that happens, and if fees of £90 or £100 a term are charged, many children needing nursery education will be deprived of it and there will be hardship.
There is no alternative. Perhaps by the time the Bill comes back from another place the Minister will have modified it further by introducing an assisted places scheme to allow deprived children to attend nursery schools.
The clause is extremely important. It could lead to the break-up of nursery education, and it will certainly cause a great deal of hardship to many children and their parents. Even if the Secretary of State were to accept all the Opposition amendments to the clause, we would still think that it was inadequate and should be withdrawn.
We have tabled amendment (b) because we believe that nursery education should be available as of right to every 4-year-old. We know that there are problems in achieving that target, but, unless the target is written into the legislation and unless the Secretary of State is keen to see that it is achieved, there will be little pressure by central Government on local authorities to achieve it. The Secretary of State has a responsibility to encourage local authorities to provide more nursery education. That means taking legal steps to ensure that they do, as well as providing resources.
The Secretary of State referred to amendment (a). The Opposition welcome the Minister's statement that he is unwilling to introduce charges for nursery education and will not do so, but the reason he gave is the wrong reason. He said that it would not raise much money anyway. We think that charges are wrong in


principle and that the Minister should have said so.

Amendment (d) provides for children who need to be compensated because they are deprived of certain advantages. We think that nursery education should be provided as of right for children whose families are in receipt of family income supplement or supplementary benefit or who are in a one-parent family. In Committee the Minister acknowledged that some children are in special need of nursery education. He therefore has a responsibility to ensure that that commitment is carried out by local authorities and should not just sit back and hope that it all works out well in the end.

Amendment No. 90 provides that nursery schools in existence at present should not be closed. If the Minister is confident, as he says, that the clause will not lead to the early closure of nursery schools, I do not understand why he cannot accept the amendment. It puts into the Bill only what the Minister has implied. If existing nursery schools are to be protected, the Minister should be willing to accept the amendment.

We hope that the Minister will accept our amendments but, even if he accepts them all, the clause will still be wrong. The clause attacks the most vulnerable children, the under-fives. It attacks the children who most need help. It is a false economy because nursery education is an important investment in the future.

I hope that the Minister will think again about the clause and be quick to come to the House and say that he has changed his mind, and instead of removing the duty of local authorities to provide nursery education will reinforce that duty. If clarification of the 1944 Act is necessary, there should be a movement in the other direction, not in the direction that will result in the break-up of nursery education.

Mr. Chris Patten: After listening to the legal arguments about the precise obligations of local education authorities under section 8(2) of the Education Act 1944 and reading the articles written by the perceptive and intelligent correspondent of The Times Educational Supplementon this question, I am drawn

irresistibly to the conclusion that the whole argument would have appealed enormously to Mr. Justice Cocklecarrot. In due course it may warm up the rhetoric of the hon. Member for Bedwellty (Mr. Kinnock) but, with great respect as the lawyers say, I do not think it lit much of a fire under the hon. Member for Bolton, West (Mrs. Taylor), except for the good joke about the assisted places scheme.
I think it was Mr. Dooley who said that what is a stone wall for a layman is usually a triumphal arch for a lawyer. Those of us who are interested in the greater provision of nursery education must be concerned principally with how we get over the stone wall. Before attempting to effect that scramble I hope I shall be excused for trying briefly, and without the advantage of a legal education, to effect a passage through the triumphal arch.
I was surprised by the legal advice given by the Department of Education and Science and I would be surprised if the Department were not equally surprised. If it means anything, it means that every local education authority in the country has been in breach of its statutory obligations for the past 36 years.
If we go back to the tablets of stone—the 1944 Act—we see the first distinction between nursery, primary and secondary schools in the difference between the obligation upon parents of children over 5 to send their children to school and the lack of that obligation on parents of children under 5. If we go on to the second distinction—I imagine it was meant as such by the draftsmen of the Act—and look at section 8(1) we see that local education authorities are given a duty to provide secondary schools and primary schools. Subsection (2) says:
In fulfilling their duties…local education authorities shall, in particular, have regard to the need for securing that provision is made for…nursery schools".
What exactly having "regard to the need" actually means is a question that suggests that we are back in Beachcomber country.
If we look at the Committee stage of the 1944 Act we do not get much more wisdom on the subject. An amendment to clause 8 was moved which sought to shift nursery schools from subsection (2)


to subsection (1). In resisting the amendment the then Parliamentary Secretary at the Board of Education said:
I think there is no doubt, after the former discussion, that the provision of nursery schools is a part of primary education. The Board are fully seized of the desire of the country that it should be expanded, but it does not appear that any substantial gain is made bringing it into 8(1)(a) and leaving it out of 8(2)(b)."—[Official Report, 15 February 1944; Vol. 397, c. 98.]
As the last 36 years have shown, how wrong he turned out to be!
The reason why the Parliamentary Secretary resisted that amendment from the then hon. Member for Kilmarnock, Mr. Kenneth Lindsay, was that the Board felt—a point that is made in Lord Butler's memoirs to which I shall return with enthusiasm later—that, however much nursery education was desirable, it did not think that it was absolutely essential. In those heady days of extremely valuable and constructive consensus politics at the end of the war—

Mr. Spearing: During the war.

Mr. Patten: During the war, that is right. In the era of the Post-War Problems Committee it was generally felt that all good men and true would be in favour of creating Utopia as soon as the peace that was just round the corner came along. However, there were clearly some bits of Utopia that were thought to be more important and necessary than others.
I turn now to the evidence of Lord Butler, that political genius and architect of the 1944 Act. He said recently—this is borne out by his speech on Second Reading of the Bill in 1944—that it was always the intention to impose a duty on local education authorities to provide nursery schools. But that was not how he put it in his memoirs which he wrote 27 conceivably law-breaking years later. In his memoirs, talking about his Second Reading speech, the noble Lord mentions the statutory duties imposed on local education authorities and goes on:
For children under the age of five, the aim"—
note the use of the word "aim"—
was a sufficient supply of nursery schools".
He goes on later in that chapter to set out the limited number of failures of the 1944 Act and he includes among them

the failure to achieve that aim. For those of us who believe in the efficacy of nursery schools it seems, unfortunately, that the provision of nursery places for as many children as want them did not come within what Lord Butler would have called the art of the possible.
4.45 pm
After the 1944 Act, distinction was continually drawn between mandatory and permissive powers. As early as 1946 the Fabian Society—I dare say that it sometimes gets things right—was urging the then Labour Government to make the section 8 provisions mandatory rather than permissive. That distinction between mandatory and permissive has been drawn in various books and textbooks ever since. For example, that distinction is drawn in the excellent book on nursery schools by Tessa Blackstone. Wherever Tessa Blackstone's political sympathies lie, they are not, on the whole, with the Conservatives.

Mr. Flannery: No.

Mr. Patten: Nor are they with the Foreign Office, as I suspect the characteristically urbane intervention by the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mr. Flannery) is suggesting.
In 1951 four county councils decided that they would do away with nursery schools. Presumably they thought that the powers under the 1944 Act were permissive. We then come to the interesting case of the intervention of Lord Hailsham in the affairs of Somerset in 1957. Until this afternoon we thought that that would not be able to shed much light on the present position, as we were led to believe—again by that perceptive correspondent of The Times Educational Supplement—that the Department had lost the directive. We now understand that the dispute about whether Lord Hailsham was acting within the powers under section 68 of the Act on the ground that the local authority was behaving unreasonably or under section 99 on the ground that it was in breach of its statutory duty has been resolved, because he issued his directive under section 99.
If that was so, it is all the more surprising that three years later in 1960 the Ministry of Education issued a circular telling local authorities not to provide any more nursery places. It is quite


extraordinary that at that time the Ministry did not seem to think that failure to provide nursery places was the same as a failure to comply with the law.
That is how things remained until, as my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State said, the Plowden committee reported and until the White Paper of 1972, the excellent objectives of which, were, alas, scuppered by the failures of the economy.
To summarise the position since 1944, at the end of the war, partly as a result of the experience of evacuation and the fact that many people had witnessed, for the first time, social and educational deprivation and under-privilege among too many children in this county, nursery education was regarded, in the words of "1066 and All That", as a good thing. But because in the 1940s there was a lack of trained teachers, a high birth rate and economic problems, because in the 1950s other educational priorities such as the reduction of class sizes, were established, and because of economic failure in the 1960s and 1970s, we never managed to turn that "very good thing," as some of us would argue, into nursery places for all those who wanted them.
I do not agree with the hon. Member for Bolton, West. The new clause does clarify the position, though I accept that the present position is pretty miserable and both parties are responsible for it. The amendment to clause 12 is conceivably a small mercy for which we should be proportionately grateful. But what do we do now about the admirable objective of Lord Butler?

Mr. Flannery: The hon. Gentleman said that the new clause clarified the position. He did not explain how it does so. Will he explain how it clarifies section 8(2)(b) of the Education Act 1944? I do not know what he means.

Mr. Patten: I have been seeking to argue for more than long enough that at best the situation since 1944 has been exceptionally confused. Since 1944 there has not been a statutory obligation on local education authorities under section 8.
I began by saying that I was extremely surprised by the legal advice that the Department seems to have been given and

that it is now applying. The clause clarifies a rather sad position for all who believe in greater nursery provision.

Mr. Kinnock: The hon. Gentleman seems to be agreeing that, for example, Oxfordshire county council was not acting illegally when it chose in November to adopt a policy that would have meant the ending of nursery education in that county. If the county council was not acting illegally under the law as it was then understood, why was it necessary even to introduce what the hon. Gentleman calls clarification, let alone the much more accurate term that has been used by my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, West—namely, changing the law?

Mr. Patten: The hon. Gentleman is being uncharacteristically obtuse. I have already said that if Oxfordshire county council was breaking the law at least four county councils were doing so in 1951. Probably every local authority has broken it since 1944. According to the hon. Gentleman's interpretation, the Department broke the law in 1960 in issuing its circular. The hon. Gentleman should make the intellectual effort to grasp that.

Mr. Kinnock: Will the hon. Gentleman tender the same advice, possibly with a little less condescension, to his right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General? On this issue the right hon. and learned Gentleman appears to have the same opinion as myself and almost everyone else.

Mr. Patten: I am sorry to have stung the hon. Gentleman. He has been extremely kind and courteous to me in the past. I do not want to annoy him. He is the last person in the House to whom I would condescend.
I began by using the most legalistic language. I dotted my speech with "great respects". I said that I did not go along entirely with the Attorney-General's advice. I do not want to put it any stronger than that. If the 1944 Act is as the hon. Gentleman claims, every local authority throughout the country has been breaking it for the past 36 years.
I return to the objective of greater under-fives provision. I believe in its importance in educational and social terms. I have seen how much my own children have gained from it. It is a


considerable pity—indeed, it is a great deal more than that—that more children have not had the benefit of nursery education.
Nursery provision in my constituency is woefully bad. I hope that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment, with some encouragement from my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science, will help to put that right by giving early approval to the application under urban aid for another nursery class at Twerton. I am glad to see that I have the support of my right hon. and learned Friend.
I do not wish to blame anyone in particular for the position in my constituency or generally throughout the country. That would be much too partisan an approach. Until those who believe in the importance of nursery education convince the rest of society that it should receive priority, until we convince a Government that nursery education should be an integral part of family policy, until we can convince a Government that it is necessary to have a family policy at all, and until we provide the resources to pay for it, the situation will not change. The present situation will remain irrespective of whichever party is on the Government side of the House. Until that new age dawns, and until we are able to change attitudes towards nursery education, I hope that my right hon. and learned Friend and his Department will undertake certain initiatives.
In addition to putting in a good word for the Twerton nursery class, I hope that my right hon. and learned Friend will try to persuade his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services of the need to try to pull together all the strands of provision for the under-fives. It is little short of a scandal that despite the report of a few years ago of the "Think Tank" on a joint approach to social policy, and despite the arrival and all too unfortunate departure of that excellent creation of the late Richard Cross-man, the co-ordinating unit for the social services in the Cabinet Office, we seldom take a broader view of education and social policy. We tend still to consider policy in departmentalised blocks. We seem never to recognise how one policy affects another and how one policy can support another.
Secondly, I should like to see the Department of Education and Science encouraging local education authorities—I was glad to hear my right hon. and learned Friend speak about this—to take advantage of empty classrooms as a consequence of falling school rolls. I should like to see the Department encouraging LEAs to use to the best advantage all the resources that they now have at their disposal. There is a great deal of untapped voluntary effort. There is an excellent pre-school play group movement. As I have said, there are empty classrooms and nursery teachers and nursery classes.
At the risk of being a shade controversial, and at the risk of seeming too much of an intellectual protege of my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Budgen), there is a resource that I should like to see the Government tapping in a more open-minded manner. In the next two days I should prefer to be supporting the Government in introducing a policy to give local authorities the authority to charge for nursery school provision rather than for transport, provided that there is adequate free provision for those in need.
In the continuing absence—I imagine that it will be a permanent absence—of the money-bearing trees of which the hon. Member for Bedwellty dreams, we should be trying during a difficult economic period to do everything that we can to use all the resources available to make better provision for the under-fives.

Mr. Allen McKay: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the £54 million that has gone on private education should have gone on nursery education?

Mr. Patten: I think that the hon. Gentleman is mistaken. He is wrong to say that £54 million has gone to private education.

Mr. Kinnock: My hon. Friend should have said "is going".

Mr. Patten: I did not have the advantage of sitting opposite the hon. Member for Bedwellty while the Bill was being discussed in Committee. I understand that he spent much of the time talking about other matters. As I understand it, the assisted places scheme, which will begin next year, will start with provision


of £5 million or £6 million and not £54 million. My right hon. and learned Friend has made it clear that the £54 million will be additional moneys.

Mr. Robert Atkins: Will my hon. Friend reflect on the fact that 131 Labour Members went to grammar schools and 26 to public schools? That represents more than 60 per cent. of the Parliamentary Labour Party. Will he reflect upon the somewhat hypocritical motives of those who, having had the advantage of that type of education, now seek to prevent others from taking advantage of it?

Mr. Patten: I take my hon. Friend's point. I am sure that he will develop it in his usual style and brio in the months and years ahead, the electors of Preston being sensible enough to return him to this place.
I hope that in making use of all the available resources we shall live up to the spirit of section 8(1) and (2) of the Education Act 1944, whatever the letters of those subsections say or do not say.

5 pm

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: In speaking to this group of amendments, I look to see if there is any good news. There is not much good news though the Opposition should welcome the Minister's firm statement that there will be no charge for nursery education. When I tabled the amendment referred to by the Minister we had considerable fears that he was under some pressure to introduce charges for nursery education.
The hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Patten) has shown us that that pressure still exists within the Conservative Party and I welcome the Minister's statement. I now accept that the amendment is not necessary in the Bill but it was necessary to get it on the Amendment Paper in order that we might get the statement that the Minister is totally against charges.
I wish that the Minister had been against them in principle as well as in practice. I got the impression from his speech that he was against charges because of practical difficulties and because they would not raise much money, rather than on the principle that there should be free education. I suppose we should

also welcome the fact that the Minister is still indicating that nursery education should be expanded. That ideal was watered down in the Conservative manifesto.
It is not much use Ministers continuing to say that they believe in nursery education unless they can offer concrete evidence of proposals to move in that direction. There was no such proposal in the Minister's speech. Will it be the grandchildren, or the great grandchildren of the children who are now being refused nursery education who will eventually find universal provision of nursery places? It is time the Government indicated when we might move towards that goal. There are arguments about how revenues from North Sea oil should be used. If we were to invest some of it during the 1980s in nursery education we would see a return on that investment long after the oil revenues have vanished.
One of the disturbing facets of the Minister's speech was the news that 75 per cent. only of socially disadvantaged children get the chance to go to nursery school. We should at least guarantee a place for those children. We should remember that though many nursery schools are in deprived areas there is an increase in the number of socially disadvantaged people living in relatively affluent areas. We should make sure that there is provision for those people as well as for those in socially disadvantaged areas. The Minister should have accepted sub-amendment (d) which urges that some groups of children should be guaranteed nursery education.
On the wider issues, the Tory Party has made a great deal of our education standards particularly in our primary schools. The first requirement for children entering a primary school is that they should have the skills necessary to take advantage of the education offered. Large numbers of children start school without having a command of spoken English. Unless they have that command, it is almost impossible to teach them to read. I have on occasion come across children who could only with great difficulty master the art of turning the squiggles on the paper into sounds but who, having pronounced the sounds, had no clue as to what the words meant. The major task of nursery education is to ensure that by the time a child reaches the age of 5 he


should have a reasonable command of the English language so that when he attempts to master the art of reading he can understand the meaning of words. Children should not have to face the double task of turning symbols into sounds as well as having to find meanings for the sounds themselves.
If we wish to develop numeracy, a basic early understanding through play of shapes, sizes and spatial relationships is the key to success. Nursery education can play a major role in that context.
We should look carefully at the problem of falling rolls. When the Labour Party was in government, it claimed that we were doing well for nursery education because a bigger percentage of children in that age group was getting into nursery schools. The reality was that a larger percentage was getting in because of falling numbers. We were not providing many extra places.
The Minister suggested that in looking at our standards we ought to see whether nursery classes could be financed on the cheap. I hope that the Minister will expand later on standards as they affect classroom space and other provisions in nursery schools because I found that a disturbing aspect of his speech.
I agree that provision need not be palatial but it seems a dangerous concept that children in nursery schools could make do with lower standards than in other sectors of education. I believe that people who are disturbed at existing low standards would want to see them improved. The Government should have been able to accept amendment (b) in the light of the suggestion that statutory provision should be made for four-year-olds and above. That is a modest suggestion.
On the question of closures it seemed that the Minister was being helpful when he said that he would make it difficult for local authorities to close nursery schools. Can he give us some assurances on that because there are children—not many—who are fortunate enough to get into nursery schools at the age of 3 or just over? If a local authority proposes to close nursery schools, will the children already there be guaranteed continued

nursery education until they move into the infants department? Or will the Minister allow a local authority to permit children to have one year of nursery education and then, because of closure, have to miss a year before they go into the infants department? The Minister should make clear to any local authority proposing closures that they must be phased in order to ensure that children are not suddenly deprived of nursery education.
I was disturbed to realise that the Minister did not intend to compel the local authorities to establish a procedure for the reduction of nursery classes. The greatest expansion in recent years has taken place in that area. If the Minister has any belief in nursery education he should insist that local authorities at least inform him of their plans so that he may express a view on the closing down of nursery classes as opposed to nursery school. The Minister must also take into account the implications for continuity. Though I believe there are now fewer nursery classes admitting three-year-old children, most of them tend to take children at 4 years of age. I hope that there will be a categoric guarantee from the Minister that no child who started at a nursery class would be made to spend a year or six months at home because there was no further nursery provision.
It is a sad day when a Government allow or encourage local authorities to reduce their commitment to nursery education. We should be firmly committed to nursery education and be making the resources available for it. I hope that my hon. Friends will support amendments (d) and (b). Even if we succeed on those amandments I hope that we will still be able to throw out the whole of the new clause.

Mr. Harry Greenway: I note that new clause 1(1) says quite clearly that local authorities
shall have power to establish nursery schools, to maintain such schools established by them or a former authority".
In bringing this point before the House I note that the Secretary of State may support closures where they are requested or where there is pressure for them. I have confidence in the compassionate attitude of my right hon. and learned Friend in these matters.
Until we heard what the Department of Education and Science said recently nursery education has always been regarded as being voluntarily provided. Pressure has been built up through the publication of league tables setting out what various local authorities provide. We have seen such leagues in Hansard, in The Times Educational Supplement and so on. They have been of valuable assistance in providing pressure to build up the nursery provision that we now have.
There has been other pressure—particularly from parents. Additionally, nobody in education would not acknowledge the pressure that has been brought by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister to improve primary and nursery education in this country. Such voluntary pressure should not be regarded as insignificant or ignored as lightweight. It has brought about the present position in nursery education, which is not marvellous, but it has improved in many cases.
I believe that the new clauses will be interpreted sensibly by my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State, and I am sure that he will do all that he can to preach the deep value of nursery education. The hon. Member for Bolton, West (Mrs. Taylor) said that Conservatives have no philosophy on or genuine commitment to nursery education. I am sure she knows that that is not so and that we have a deep commitment to the nursery stage. I spent all my working life in education until I came to this place in May of last year, and I believe that nursery education is where it all begins.
This is a time when many would not be prepared to see more spent on nursery education. I believe that such people are blinkered and that we must persuade society to pay the necessary taxes for the sort of provision that we want. There is no substitute for the role of the mother with children from the ages of 1 to 5. That fact has not been mentioned so far in the debate and I believe that it should be.

Miss Joan Lestor: What about the father?

Mr. Greenway: However, the role of the mother should not detract from the value of nursery education. The social-

ising of children in nursery schools is of great value. They learn to interact with one another and with adults. Often for the first time, those children who live in deprived and miserable backgrounds have the opportunity to see a bright environment for a few hours a day. I was impressed by the compassionate way in which my right hon. and learned Friend brought out such points.
Nursery schools provide accommodation for children of single parents. They provide help for children both of whose parents are working. Expert teachers are on hand to help children to begin to stand on their ownfeet—that is so much of what life is about. Children start to plug into the learning process through the high pupil-teacher ratio in nursery schools of about 1:6. The ratio is that high because it must be at that level, and that is one reason why nursery education is so expensive. I believe that the new clauses do nothing to prevent the process from continuing.
Playgroups have been referred to in the debate. In playgroups there is a pupil-staff ratio of about 1:30, but they seek to carry out more of a child minding process, valuable though that is. That distinction needs to be made. We are living in an age of tight budgets, particularly in some areas. That means that cuts have been necessary in education. It would be wrong to cut the provision for children of statutory age to provide for those of nursery age, highly desirable though that is. It would be robbing Peter to pay Paul, and we must avoid that at all costs. It is not that early education is not important, but education at the statutory age is absolutely crucial.
I am keen on the provision of day nurseries. That matter comes up elsewhere in the Bill. They provide great opportunity for deprived children. The vital thing about nursery education is that we should not look on it as providing for children who are well provided for in other ways. Local authorities should be subjected to voluntary pressure to provide for the disabled and deprived in their community.
I place particular priority on education for children of statutory age. More funds should be available for teachers, buildings, recreational facilities teaching materials and so on. However, resources


permitting, I should like to see as much provision as possible for day nurseries and nursery schools catering for all children, particularly the less fortunate.
5.15 pm
I should like now to make one or two educational observations as an educationalist, to illustrate why I believe that nursery education is desirable. Nursery education provides an environment in which small children can benefit from relationships with adults outside the home. Partly, it is a social process, but it is also substantially an educational process. Small children learn to relate to adults within the home, but it is another matter to take them outside their home and secure environment and get them to relate to other children and adults. It is important for them to learn that, in order to make a smooth transition into primary school. Nursery schools provide freedom of movement for children in, for example, small flats. Nothing is more restrictive for a child's mental intellectual and social development than to be in a confined space and unimaginative surroundings. Nursery schools provide space and imaginative and creative surroundings in which children can benefit from the freedom of movement that we all need at an early age.
The new clause facilitates that aspect of nursery education. The essential development of children comes through playing with sand, clay, and so-on. It is crucial for children to learn to create shapes and move objects and blocks, clay and putty. In nursery education children are in a benevolently supervised environment, with a high pupil-teacher ratio, and they are helped to play creatively.
In a strictly educational sense, there are opportunities for mothers to learn through the development of their children. That is important, and it will be facilitated by the new clause. Through the guidance of nursery schools, teachers and head teachers, they can learn a great deal about how to bring up children. Often it is here that parents will begin to see the needs of their children for the first time. The transition to primary school—or to the first school if there is a three tier system—is greatly assisted by nursery education.
I am therefore at one with the Secretary of State. This is a crucial area. We are

strong supporters of nursery education. It is of crucial importance to the early, and therefore later, development of the child. The more the better. Nursery education must result from the voluntary pressure of parents. We can and must bring pressure to bear on local education authorities to provide such facilities. However, nursery education will not die as a result of the new clause. Instead, we shall rely more than ever on parents, teachers, Members of Parliament, councillors and all those concerned with the welfare of small children. We must remember that small children grow into bigger children and citizens. That is important for the future of this country. If we all play our role, we shall go forward with fresh vision.

Mr. Dennis Canavan: I agree with some of the remarks of the hon. Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Greenway). However, I wish that he had reached the correct conclusion. If he had been true to the earlier part of his speech, where he rightly placed great importance on the provision of nursery education, he should have agreed to come into the Lobby with us. He should vote against the new clause. The hon. Gentleman is one of the few Conservative Members to have spent most of his working life at the chalk face of education. I hope that he will tell the Secretary of State where to get off and that he will not become a "Yes-man" for this reactionary Tory Government.
These two new clauses are a measure of the Government's contempt for the education of young children. They have introduced these clauses at a late stage. That is nothing but a measure of their contempt for democratic debate and parliamentary scrutiny. They are trying to get this rotten legislation on to the statute book within a minimum period of time. That will allow only a minimum amount of examination by hon. Members, and it will allow virtually no examination and scrutiny by members of the public. Perhaps it was the Secretary of State's deliberate strategy to wait until the final kick of the ball before coming out with these amendments, in order to minimise our opportunity to attack him. It will minimise also the opportunities of those outside to provide constructive alternatives to such reactionary proposals. If I


am disappointed with the Secretary of State for Education and Science, I am more than disappointed with the Secretary of State for Scotland. It is interesting that not one of his fellow Ministers has had the courage to put his name to new clause 2.

Mr. Greenway: Did the hon. Member for West Stirlingshire (Mr. Canavan) believe that a statutory duty existed to provide nursery education before the recent advice from the Department of Education and Science? I did not know that such a duty existed, and I believe that very few people in Britain did.

Mr. Canavan: I am not a lawyer or a legal expert. However, I took the trouble to read the Act covering England and Wales as well as the 1962 Act covering Scotland. The Scottish Act is probably even stronger in its wording. It appears to me that there is an obligation on local education authorities in Scotland, as well as on those in England and Wales, to provide nursery education.

Mr. Greenway: That is not what I said. Did the hon. Gentleman believe, in 1970, that there was a statutory duty to provide nursery education? If he did, why did he not fight then as he is fighting now?

Mr. Canavan: I was not a Member of Parliament in 1970. I have always taken the view that there is some form of legal obligation upon local education authorities to make some provision. Perhaps the strength of that obligation was not as great as the obligation to provide primary and secondary education. However, I held a common belief that an obligation existed to provide pre-school education.

Mr. Martin J. O'Neill: Does my hon. Friend concede that in Scottish colleges of education—now under fire from the Government—great stress has always been placed on the obligation of the teaching profession to campaign for nursery education? That was stressed against the backdrop of the 1962 Act. Is it not a fact that when we were students at such colleges of education, staff propaganda was an essential part of our courses?

Mr. Canavan: I never believed everything that they told us at colleges of

education. However, I agree that they laid proper emphasis on the provision and extension of nursery education in Scotland and elsewhere.

Mr. Chris Patten: Mr. Chris Patten rose—

Mr. Canavan: I have hardly finished the first paragraph of my speech. However, as the hon. Gentleman is keen to intervene, I shall give way.

Mr. Patten: I am keen to intervene because the hon. Gentleman has talked about two types of obligation. One apparently carries statutory requirements, and the other carries something else. Will he define the two forms of obligation more clearly, as well as their legal effects?

Mr. Canavan: I do not know about Bath, but in Scotland a local education authority has a statutory duty to provide primary and secondary education for all children. As regards nursery education, it has never been understood that the obligation was equally comprehensive. However, there is an obligation to provide some nursery education. As a result of the new clauses the Government will remove that statutory obligation.
I am surprised that the Secretary of State for Scotland alone has seen fit to put his name to new clause 2. The clause does not have the support of his hon. Friends. Not even his co-Ministers appear to support him. Once again he has acted as a lackey for his fellow public school boys in the Cabinet. Instead of looking at Scottish legislation and the needs of our children, he has merely followed suit. If his colleagues in the Cabinet think that something is good enough for England and Wales, he thinks that it must be good enough for Scotland. He gets out his old autograph book and signs his name in support of the new clause. That is not good enough.
I notice that the Secretary of State for Scotland is not here. However, at least the Minister responsible for education in Scotland is present. That is more than could be said during the Committee stage. At that time, we only had the inexpert advice of someone who had little, if any, knowledge of Scottish education—the Minister with responsibility for health at the Scottish Office. I thought that that was a tacit admission by the Government that the Bill is attacking


not only children's educational standards but their health standards.
The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland who has responsibility for education is about the only Conservative Member who went to a Scottish non-fee paying school. He has at least some experience of what might be called the mainstream of Scottish education. I hope that he can tell us why the Secretary of State for Scotland has produced the new clause at this later stage.
5.30 pm
Mention has been made of the Attorney-General's statements about the legality of present obligations for the provision of nursery education. We are entitled to a similar statement from the Solicitor-General for Scotland. Where is the hon. and learned Gentleman? Is he away collecting his exorbitant expenses from the Scottish courts, or does he merely not have an interest in education?
Like most ministers at the Scottish Office, the hon. and learned Gentleman has virtually no experience of the mainstream of Scottish education, but he is the only member of the Government qualified to speak on Scottish law. He should have had the courtesy to give us his opinon. I do not expect that he knows much about nursery education, but he could at least explain the Education (Scotland) Act 1962. His comments may have rendered some of my earlier remarks unnecessary. We need a clear statement of the law as it stands before the Government starts butchering Education Acts which are perfectly adequate.
The Minister said that the purpose of these two new clauses was basically clarification. Nevertheless, their effect will be to remove statutory obligations. Local authorities will be discouraged from making adequate provision for nursery education. That is what it is all about. It is similar to the relaxation of the law in depriving children of their legal rights to school meals, milk and transport. All the measures are aimed at implementing proposed Tory cuts in educational expenditure between the current year and the next year of £411 million over the whole of the United Kingdom and £41 million in Scotland. The Government are making it easier for local authorities to implement the cuts. They are encouraging local authorities to

abandon what have been considered to be their statutory obligations. That is the thinking behind the new clauses.
If there is any educational philosophy behind all this, it appears to be that this Tory Government think that nursery education is an unecessary frill. For them it is not a priority. It is dispensable, and they can therefore remove the statutory duty on local authorities and allow them to abandon any commitment to provide nursery education. The truth is the exact opposite. Far from being a frill, nursery education is almost a necessity for many children, and that is particularly true in areas of multiple deprivation.
The Minister with responsibility for education at the Scottish Office represents an Edinburgh constituency, but I believe that was brought up and educated in Greenock, and he should know about such areas of deprivation in Clydeside. Whether social or educational, multiple deprivation begins at an early age—long before a child goes to school. We should aim for positive discrimination in favour of deprived children at an early age, before the age of 5, when they would normally be enrolled at a primary school.
Various categories of families with particular difficulties and needs who should have priority have been mentioned—one-parent families and families with working mothers. Partly because of the Government's economic policies, some mothers are virtually forced to work to supplement the family income. Many may prefer to stay at home and look after the children until they are old enough to go to primary school. Albeit reluctantly, some of these mothers have to find jobs because of the economic climate and the family's financial circumstances.
They will find it impossible to do that unless their child is enrolled at nursery school or nursery class or they have someone to look after the baby. However, nursery education should never be regarded simply as a child-minding service. It is not. We should certainly try to look after the needs of single parents, over 80 per cent. of whom are women, and mothers who have to go out to work. However, in considering nursery education, the needs of the child should be paramount. There is plenty of evidence that nursery education can do much to compensate for disadvantage in early life


and fulfil the child's educational and social needs.
Some primary teachers used to feel a certain antipathy towards nursery education. They perhaps thought that nursery education was covering certain areas which should more properly be covered by primary schools. Some of that criticism was misinformed. The vast majority of primary teachers are now in favour of nursery education.
I have a magazine from an organisation called the Assistant Masters and Mistresses Association, which is not by any means the most radical teachers' association. That association conducted a study of what infant and junior teachers thought about nursery education. It reported:
The children were able to benefit from an environment helping language development—through talking with adults and other children, stories and rhymes, and through activities, creative work, displays, pictures, which all stimulate language.
It went on to state:
Nearly all the teachers agreed that a signal benefit of nursery education lies in the confidence children gain from mixing with other children at an early stage. The consensus was well summed up by a Huddersfield reception class teacher who suggested that the child who has been to a nursery school tended to settle down better when he comes into school, and was more able to co-operate with his peer group and to relate to adults.
Those are examples of opinions of primary teachers on nursery education.

Mr. Flannery: Does my hon. Friend remember that last year the National Association of Teachers in Further and Higher Education produced a pamphlet on nursery education, thus proving that teachers at the top level of teaching are deeply interested in nursery education, for some of the reasons that my hon. Friend has just given?

Mr. Canavan: My hon. Friend is right. It is not just primary and nursery teachers who are in favour of the expansion of nursery eduction. Virtually all educationists are unanimous in their approval of nursery education and the need for its expansion.
We should aim at legislation and the back-up resources to give all children over 3 years of age the right to a place in a nursery school or class. Priority should be given to children with special needs,

such as the physically and mentally disabled, those from single-parent families and those who are victims of multiple deprivation.
If I heard the Secretary of State correctly, he seemed to suggest in an intervention that the last Labour Government slipped up in this respect. I certainly have never claimed that the record of the last Labour Government was perfect in educational matters—particularly nursery education. However, I understand that during the life of the last Labour Government there was a steady improvement in the number of places made available.
It has been rightly pointed out that the reason why capital investment was not as high as it should have been was that many local education authorities, particularly those under Tory control, did not take advantage of the money that the Labour Government were willing to give them to build new nursery schools or provide extra places.
We are now presented with a great opportunity. Recent demographic trends indicate a drop in the number of primary pupils. In fact, most primary schools have suffered a decline in the roll in recent years. We have had the Secretary of State for Education and Science and the Secretary of State for Scotland saying that there is a surplus of accommodation and teachers. What alack of imagination they show! They hold up their hands and complain that we have too many classrooms and too many teachers in under-used schools. They talk about the possibility of closing classes, courses and even schools, and of sacking teachers. In fact, the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland who has responsibility for educational matters, recently declared that local education authorities in Scotland were over-staffed by 2,600 teachers. His solution to the problems of Scottish education is to sack 2,600 teachers. But he is also responsible for employment—or unemployment—in Scotland, and that unemployment is now well over the 200,000 mark—the second worst total since the Second World War.
Ministers have shown no imagination about using under-used resources in human terms and in accommodation terms. I am not suggesting that every unemployed teacher or every teacher


threatened with unemployment would necessarily be qualified to teach preschool children, but some might be and others might be trained to do so. Have the Government undertaken any study of such matters? Have they thought about using teachers' aptitudes in whatever area of education they are qualified for?
I mentioned that the demographic trends that we have witnessed in recent years have presented us with a golden opportunity to extend educational provision to more people in the community and over wider areas. Instead of grasping this opportunity, this Government are turning the clock back. This is another reactionary move by this most reactionary of Cabinets, and yet another attack on the rights of children. The principle seems to be that the smaller the children the harder they hit them.
I hope that the House will reject these new clauses, because they are completely contrary to what we should be trying to do in extending pre-school education and education in general for the community at large.

Mr. Tom Benyon: I come to this debate in a somewhat confused way. My great-great-great-grandfather was a famous parliamentarian and spent his parliamentary career in the other place. He was noted as the worst Prime Minister that this country has ever seen—despite much competition in the recent past—by giving away, in an absentminded moment, the American colonies. In fact, he initiated the famous phrase about a politician who met every problem with his mouth wide open because he spent most of his parliamentary career asleep. However, my great-great-great-grandfather was a very confused man, just as I am by various clauses in this Bill.
My constituency happens to be within the area of the Oxfordshire county council. I am well familiar with all the problems of that area. I am familiar with the problems of the proposed closing of nursery schools and the proposed charging for buses. I am also well aware of all the other problems with which the Oxfordshire county council is finding it difficult to grapple.
I believe that the councillors are on the horns of a dilemma because they

have been diligent in the past and responsible in responding to Governments of all political complexions who have asked for cuts in public expenditure—and not all councils have responded in such a way. Now they are in difficulty because we are making requests for further cuts. These cuts will take place in services and will cut deeply into the bone. I want to stress that the Oxford county council quite rightly believes that it is acting in accordance with the wishes of this Government just as it acted in accordance with the wishes of previous Governments. It should be remembered that this Government have not set a precedent in asking local authorities to make cuts. Oxford is simply attempting to save money and one way of doing so is by closing nursery schools in the area.
There are many schools of thought on this matter. Most hon. Members on both sides agree that a system of nursery school education is highly desirable. There are some people who believe that it caters only for idle parents, but I do not subscribe to that view. There is another school of thought that says that, because William Shakespeare, Winston Churchill and many of us here today did not go to nursery school, the whole idea is unnecessary—after all, look at us now. Nevertheless, I happen to believe in it passionately and I am a fully paid-up member of the "I-like-nursery-schools" fan club. It would be nice if Oxford could not only retain its existing nursery school structure, but could expand it in future.
I also believe very strongly in the autonomy of local councils to run their own affairs. If we want to get councillors of high calibre, we must allow them to take control of their own affairs. We must ensure that they are not just puppets of Westminster politicians who do exactly what we tell them. Of course there must be some degree of control. We control the purse strings and that is most effective. Nevertheless, if we want to attract councillors of high calibre, they must be allowed to get on with the job in hand.
The problem for my right hon. and learned Friend is what to do with the Oxfordshire county council? Should be scold the council? Is he to tell the council that it has autonomy but cannot exercise it? This is an extremely difficult problem. I do not wish to make sport


with the dilemma of my right hon. and learned Friend. It is, nevertheless, one that he will have to meet. Unless the position is reversed, Oxfordshire county council is hellbent, if I may use such an unparliamentary expression, on shutting the nursery schools in my area.
That is a difficult problem. I speak on this Bill in a somewhat confused state. I am not entirely sure what I would do if I were my right hon. and learned Friend. I have not gathered precisely what he intends to do. I hope that at some stage he will be kind enough to tell us. Once the nursery schools are destroyed, they are rather like Humpty Dumpty—once pushed off the wall, it is extremely difficult to put back the inside of the egg and to sellotape the shell.
Another part of the Bill that gives me a degree of concern is the possibility of bus charges going through the roof. This is a problem for many families in my area—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bryant Godman Irvine): Order. I think that the hon. Gentleman might find a more suitable occasion for ventilating that grievance.

Mr. Benyon: Having ventilated, with a degree of enthusiasm, the points I have already made in regard to nursery schools, I wish to draw my brief comments to a speedy conclusion. I hope that my right hon. and learned Friend will clarify the position that has confused me so much and I look forward to hearing his remarks later today.

Mr. Beith: There have been three speeches from the Conservative Back Benches today, all, in varying degrees of enthusiasm, favourable towards nursery schools and hoping to see them continued and extended, but all, although I am not sure about the hon. Member for Abingdon (Mr. Benyon), apparently supporting a Government new clause to remove from local authorities any statutory obligation to provide nursery schools and nursery classes. There must be a lesson in that. It seems that Conservative Members are not facing up to the reality of the situation although, when the Division lists are published, I may be prepared to exclude the hon. Member for Abingdon, who has not yet resolved his confusion and uncertainty about how to vote. I put it to the hon. Gentleman and others that it is

difficult to see any other explanation for this new clause appearing at this late stage than a desire to get the right hon. and learned Gentleman's friends in Oxfordshire off the hook and to give people in other areas a similar opportunity to close down as many nursery schools as they want.
The new clause could have been tabled at a much earlier stage. It could have been put down for the Committee stage. It could have been included in the Bill when it was introduced if a wider purpose had been intended. It seems obvious that the new clause is to let Oxfordshire off the hook. Oxfordshire has made no secret of its desire to be let off the hook. Its chief education officer, speaking as an officer and not in a party political capacity, said that the Attorney-General's ruling had put the cat among the pigeons and that it was impossible to comply with the law, as it stood, but that, none the less, he would plough ahead regardless with his ideas on the assumption that the law would be changed. The indications were clearly given to the Department of Education and Science and to the Government that Oxfordshire had to be let off the hook. Oxfordshire is not without friends at court and in the highest places of the Government. Other education authorities facing similar pressures would clearly like the indication that they can follow this route and can close nursery schools as an economy measure. I can see no purpose in the new clause other than to provide that opportunity.
This new clause cannot have been tabled to clarify the law. How many times, Mr. Deputy Speaker, can you recall a Minister coming to the House and saying that he must have a new clause added to the Bill to clarify the law, and that he had no other purpose and objective than to see that the statute book was clear and without ambiguity? But the statute book is riddled with ambiguities and unclarity. We live with a great deal of it. Some proves useful at times in deploying arguments.
Whenever Ministers say that they are clarifying the law, they are usually changing it, and trying to put a particular interpretation on it. The purpose of this new clause is to establish the legal position that there should be no statutory obligation to provide nursery education. The Secretary of State nods. We should


stop pretending that it is otherwise. It is to remove a statutory obligation which the right hon. and learned Gentleman claims, and which I think we can concede, has not been achieved in practice and, for at least some of the period about which we are talking, has not been as widely acknowledged as at present.

Mr. Mark Carlisle: To avoid a great deal more discussion on this fact, I wish to make clear that I have never attempted to deny that what I am doing changes the law. I have said that the duty that appears to exist under section 8 was extremely confused. Clarification was required. I was making clear that in future there would be no duty. I accept that in making that clear I am changing the law.

Mr. Beith: Why is clarification required? It seems to be required in order to enable some authorities to dispense with nursery education altogether. It is rather a good kind of unclear law that stops even one Conservative education authority closing all its nursery schools. If that is the effect of unclear laws, I wish we had more of them. I do not believe that the existence of the law on the statute book in its present form will present insoluble difficulties for those authorities genuinely trying to provide as much nursery education as present resources permit and which have programmes to develop nursery education to achieve objectives set out in the Act.
I cannot believe that there will be a procession of such authorities arraigned in the courts for failing fully to satisfy the expectations created by the Act. The fear is that certain education authorities will be prevented from dispensing entirely with nursery schools, as we have known them. If there were not that fear I do not believe that the clause would have been introduced. The practical effect of the clause is, I suspect, to give a green light to more local authorities to take that damaging course. That is not what ought to be happening.
The Government should be placing emphasis on retaining existing nursery schools. As the hon. Member for Abingdon said, it is difficult to repair the damage done if nursery schools once close. That is why parents in Buckinghamshire campaigned so vigorously against nursery, school closures in that county. That is

why parents in Oxfordshire are now concerned. We should be trying to retain existing nursery schools and using the opportunities presented, given even the present resource difficulties, to expand nursery provision in other ways. We should use the physical space created in primary schools for more nursery classes and use teaching resources that can be freed to make more provision for nursery schools. We should extend provision for under-fives in existing schools and encourage co-operation with the voluntary movement and the playgroup movement.
I reject the view of the hon. Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Greenway), who seemed to think that the playgroup movement was child minding. It is nothing of the kind. The playgroup movement has a definite educational purpose. I oppose wholly the idea that either nursery education, as statutorily provided, or the playgroup movement, is a child-minding system. The proof that the playgroup movement is nothing of the kind is shown by the extensive participation of the mothers whose children are in the groups in the running of those groups.
Nursery education is an educational activity. Its purpose is to widen and to extend the opportunities available to children before they go to school. It was set out in those terms by the Prime Minister in a White Paper when she was Secretary of State for Education and Science. In my view, the White Paper is recommended reading for anyone concerned with nursery education.
The spirit of that White Paper is negated, however, by the exercise on which the Government are engaged today. Nursery education needs to be extended not simply to meet the problems of those families who have to find somewhere to send their children. I reject that narrow interpretation of nursery education. A problem that is not often mentioned is nursery education in rural areas. Much of the provision so far has been in towns, where the problems of multiple deprivation have existed.
6 pm
A different problem exists in rural areas. Because the number of families on farms and in scattered hamlets is much smaller than in the past, young children


do not meet other young children of their own age. Their only company is their parents, and occasionally some older children. Until they go to school they do not have the need or the opportunity to relate to other children of the same age. Their progress in school, particularly if they go to a school which brings together town and country children, is often delayed and retarded because they have not had the same opportunities to talk to other children, to learn to develop and to put forward their own ideas, as those children who have had more opportunity to play with others.
That is why development in the rural areas is so important. It is not achieved, in most cases, by the provision of purpose-built nursery schools, but by extension through existing facilities, and by providing nursery classes and nursery teaching within village schools. I do not believe that any of those developments will be encouraged or strengthened if today we vote off the statute book the existing obligations upon local authorities. By including in the statute book so expressly permissive a new clause we are giving the opposite indication.
We might worry less about the clause if the climate were one in which there was a great and easy natural development of nursery education—a climate in which resources were more readily available and in which there was not the most intense competition for the resources available. But the circumstances are different. We are faced with decline, retrenchment and relentless pressure from the Government to make savings in the whole field of education. The same authorities that are struggling in one field will find themselves struggling in another. Authorities that are trying to provide some measure of education in rural areas are those that are being told to cut school transport and to cut school meals. They are being told that if they do not make those savings they must make savings elsewhere. They are under multiple pressure to make savings in education. This cannot be a time at which to tell them that they have no obligations for nursery education.
The Secretary of State said that he had made one concession. Clause 12 can be used as an appeal procedure when a nursery school is threatened with closure.

That will not do very much about the cases where nursery classes are cut, and where the numbers of rising-fives are cut. It might have been more to the point if the Secretary of State had talked in terms of clause 15. He has been prepared to include in the Bill the most extensive and detailed provisions on the regulation and size of schools and classes that have ever been seen in our education legislation.
Clause 15 provides that if a school is reduced in size by 20 per cent it can be made the subject of a reference to the Secretary of State, on the basis that that is a major change in the size and the character of the school. The Secretary of State has not been prepared to apply that sort of consideration to changes in nursery schools. We might have taken his concession more seriously if he had acted in those terms. Clause 15 is an extremely cumbersome procedure, but at least it shows that the Secretary of State is prepared to act. He is saying that one-fifth of the children in one class of a school cannot be removed but that a whole nursery class can be removed.
This is the worst possible moment to wipe off the statute book such obligations on the provision of nursery education. I hope that hon. Members, including Conservative Members who express sympathy with nursery education, will join us in ensuring that the clause is not accepted.

Miss Joan Lestor: We are witnessing the death knell of nursery education. I cannot help but express my contempt for those hon. Gentlemen who talked about the value of nursery education but who tonight will vote to abolish it. There have been many speeches in the House over the years about the value of nursery education and its importance in child development, but when it comes to the crunch we are told that it is the embroidery in education and that it is not a vitally important part of statutory education. Until we join together and say that we are going to make nursery education obligatory—as obligatory as is education from 5–16—we shall always find that when there are cuts in expenditure nursery education will be the first to go. In their amendments the Government are telling local authorities not to be under any misapprehension. They are telling local authorities that they do not have to provide nursery education.
I agree with the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) about the value of nursery education. I speak as a former nursery school teacher. It is not simply a question of saying that the important years are those after the age of 5. Education is about curiosity, and a child is at its most curious from the ages of 2, 3 and 4. If those valuable years are missed and the child is not given the proper stimulation, the proper play materials and the incentive to explore and to ask questions in a properly structured environment, those years will be lost for ever. All the arguments about improving educational opportunity will be lost. Those vital years can never be recaptured.
When the previous Labour Government were in power we were treated to what was called a great debate on education. The right hon. Gentleman who is now Leader of the House and the hon. Member for Brent, North (Dr. Boyson) went round the country, day in and day out, week in and week out, informing people that the standard of education was falling, that the State schools were appalling, and that the primary schools and their allegedly progressive methods were causing great damage to school children. At that time I defended education in Britain. I defended the State system. I wish that I had had the opportunity to go to the comprehensive school that my son attends. To slur Labour Members who attended educational establishments chosen by their parents is ridiculous. If some Labour Members and, indeed, some Conservative Members had had the opportunity of comprehensive education, and if some had attended nursery schools, we might be hearing speeches the like of which we have never heard before.
The prophecy about State education is beginning to come true. State education is being undermined, and it is being abolished. The hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Patten) made a sympathetic speech about nursery education. He said that we should campaign and convince people. People are convinced. Many people outside the House of Commons today were lobbying hon. Members about nursery education. People have lobbied since 1968. At that time they came to the House of Commons in their thousands to protest that they wanted more nursery education.
If a survey were to be conducted and if people were to be asked if they would prefer an assisted places scheme to nursery education, I know what the answer would be. Working-class and middle-class mothers would all say the same. Nursery education does not simply involve child minding; it should be the right of every child. Every child should have the right to facilities as a first step towards a wider education environment.
Today the death knell of nursery education has sounded. We do not wish to cloud the issue. Local authorities are being told that they do not have to provide nursery education. Never before when there have been expenditure cuts have we taken it upon ourselves to instruct or give permission to local authorities to cut nursery education. The irony of the situation is that under the Labour Administration, 54 per cent. of 4-year-olds gained access to nursery schools, nursery classes or early entrance into primary schools. Time and again, when allocations were made available, the Tory authorities refused those allocations.
Until facilities for the under-fives, in the broadest possible way—facilities for mothers who have to work and for mothers who do not have to work—are based on education, and until that is made a statutory obligation, we shall always be pushed back into the position in which the first to fall under the cuts will be those children who most need the provision—the under-fives.

Mr. John MacKay: Without being in any way critical, Mr. Deputy Speaker, of the order in which you call upon hon. Members to speak, I had hoped that I might speak after the hon. Member for West Stirlingshire (Mr. Canavan). During the course of his speech—which we have heard many times in Committee—he made his customary attack on my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeenshire, West (Mr. Fairgrieve)—the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland who is responsible for health matters. He also made his usual attack on and asked his usual question about the Solicitor-General for Scotland.

Mr. Canavan: Where is he?

Mr. MacKay: I would have preferred to follow immediately after the hon.


Member for West Stirlingshire in order to demonstrate to some of my hon. Friends that the Scottish education system is not one from which the teaching of manners is totally absent. I hope that my few remarks will contrast with the remarks, sometimes—indeed, often—intemperate, which they hear on the Floor of the House and also in Committee. I should also like to deal with the speech of the hon. Member for Eton and Slough (Miss Lestor).
The problem with which we are faced in Scotland and in England in regard to the present legislation is in knowing whether a local education authority in England, or an education authority in Scotland, is obliged to provide nursery education. As I understand my right hon. and learned Friend's argument, nobody thought that the authorities were under that obligation. A look at the percentage of 3-year-olds and 4-year-olds in Scotland and in England who were in nursery education would suggest that the local authorities did not think that they were obliged to provide nursery education for all the children who wanted it.
I have in mind some of the local education authorities in England. I am sure that some Labour Members will tell me that these are Conservative-controlled local education authorities, but that does not matter. They obey the law, and if the law said that they had to provide the facilities they would have done so. Some figures are as low as 2 per cent. and 3 per cent. Over the whole of England, the figure for nursery schools is 18 per cent. It is the same in Scotland. It is therefore quite clear from the figures that for many years local education authorities have not considered that they had an obligation to provide nursery education on a grand scale. Tonight we are making regular the position in which these local authorities thought that they were.
In the debate, Opposition Members are suggesting that nursery education ought to be expanded and ought to be provided for all children. I should have thought that that was not obeying the spirit of the legislation, and would certainly not be in keeping with the priorities that we ought to put on the spending of money on education at this time.
The debate is, therefore, partly about the legislation—some Opposition Members have mentioned it—but it is also partly about whether we should be providing education—as suggested by the hon. Member for Eton and Slough—virtually for all children above the age of 2 years, in her case, and the age of 3 years in the case of other hon. Members.
6.15 pm
The provision of facilities for the under-fives in this country at the moment is met principally by the play group organisation and the Pre-School Playgroups Association. In my own constituency, for example, the figures for this type of provision are much better than those for nursery education. In one part of my constituency, 59 per cent. of all children between 3 and 5 years of age attend playgroups. In another area, the figure goes up to 65 per cent. In one island—such areas are very difficult, as the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) pointed out—45 per cent. of the children between 3 and 5 years of age attend playgroups.
I am aware that some people do not greatly approve of playgroups because they are not manned by professionals and because funny people called parents, who have no skills in these matters, run playgroups. The fact that they are not under the control of the State is also regarded unfavourably.
I should like to read a short quotation from a book called "Who Cares?", by Penelope Leach, in which she examines the relationship between an expanding nursery school's education system and a pre-school playgroup system based on mothers and their friends. This is an area where the provision of facilities for the under-fives could be expanded without spending any more money, because at the moment, at 1976 prices, it costs £1,130 annually in running expenses to provide a nursery school place. A great many playgroup places could be provided for that kind of money. It is not, of course, nursery school education, but the point that I am making, and made in Committee, is that I do not consider, unlike some of my hon. Friends, that nursery schools are of themselves good things—the goodies that ought to be dished out to children.
Parents—and mothers in particular—have a much more important role to play


than is accepted by those who put forward the general thesis that children should go to nursery school at 4, 3 or 2 years of age.
I want to return to the question of the playgroup movement because it is important, if we are talking about provision for the under-fives, that we should not ignore their very important role. This is what Penelope Leach says:
Playgroups need more State money but not more State interference and getting the one without the other will be difficult. The 'by parents, for parents and the children' philosophy, which keeps them as generators rather than replacers of parental resources, is already threatened by ideas about 'integrating them into other services for children under five'. The idea of running this kind of playgroup 'under the supervision of' an attached day nursery or child health clinic, is anathema. To be an extension of parental resources, playgroups have to belong, to be run by and be the responsibility of, the parents of the children who use them. The anxiety of the State to ensure that children are kept safe and are 'properly' cared for is commendable and their fear of liability in case of accident is understandable. Nevertheless, if playgroups are to function as parent-resources, the State will have to trust them"—
—an amazing doctrine—
to know best. If they do not, playgroups will become more and more like nursery schools; places which parents accept as being of benefit to their children but from which they, personally, tend to flee.
That quotation demonstrates—

Miss Joan Lestor: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the overwhelming majority of nursery schools in this country have an active mother participation process?

Mr. MacKay: I cannot see how the point that the hon. Lady has just made marries with the points made by most of her hon. Friends about working mothers. If the mothers are working they cannot be participating. As I understand a lot of the quotations that I have read about nursery education, it is the influence of the professionals that is important—that the professional will man it and not the parents. The playgroups to which my children went, and which exist in my constituency, are manned in the main by the mothers of the children. It is the mothers who look after them.

Mr. Allen McKay: That is utter rubbish. It is possible to go into any junior school and pick three types of

children. There are those who did not go to a playgroup or nursery school, those who went to a playgroup, and those who went to a nursery school. There is a direct division between all three categories, and it is the nursery school that comes out top every time.

Mr. John MacKay: With respect, I shall come back to that later in my speech, when I hope to investigate the impact of the nursery school. If the hon. Gentleman means what he says, he ought to be saying that we should reduce the school starting age and place a duty on the parents to send their children to nursery school, otherwise the children will be missing something very serious in their education. Once the argument is accepted for the 4-year-old child it can be further argued for the 3-year-old.
In that way, we can go on until the parents have little or no responsibility for their children. The children will go to school from the age of 3 and they will be there from 9 am until 3.30 pm. Many children feel that they are at school long enough in their lives. It would be quite wrong to send children to school at the age of 3 when they ought to be enjoying their play and loving care at home. It would be greatly to the detriment of the child, of the mother, and of the family, as the basic unit of our society.
I turn to the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Bath (Mr. Patten), with which I did not agree. He mentioned the Think Tank—the Central Policy Review Staff—and I wish to quote some of its remarks in advancing the theory of nursery education. They help to reinforce my argument that nursery education is a diminution of the role of the mother and the family.
The Think Tank said:
Most parents with young children need advice and help in caring for them and bringing them up…Governmental agencies have an increasing role to play in providing the essential health and advisory services to help young parents…The assumption that in normal circumstances…the family can cope is now no longer a sufficient answer.
If that is what it thinks, I am not impressed. It is suggesting that the family is not nearly such an important thing in our society as I believe it should be, and as I am sure that most right thinking Members believe it should be.
I turn to two or three of the arguments for nursery school education. I accept that there is a role for nursery education for certain children. I deal first with the working mums. Reports by the CBI and the trade unions are naturally slanted towards the theory that if a mum does not wish to work she is somehow an inadequate person, and that we should organise our facilities so that she can go out to work.
I tabled a question to the Department of Employment on 29 October 1979, and was told that in Britain in 1978 there were about 2¾ million mothers with children under 5. About 750,000 of those were in paid employment—under 30 per cent.—of whom fewer than 200,000 were in full-time employment—that is, working 30 hours or more per week. The remaining 600,000 worked part-time—that is, less than 30 hours per week. Unfortunately, the Department could not give me a greater breakdown of the 30 hours. Even if we consider part-time and full-time work, fewer than one-third of the under-fives have mothers who go out to work.
If nursery education is expanded beyond the needs of even a portion of that one-third—because many mothers in part-time work may not require all-day facilities—it will bring in a number of mums who do not go out to work, who do not wish to go out to work, but who begin to feel that they have to send their children to nursery school because, taking the argument of the hon. Member for Penistone (Mr. McKay), somehow the children emerge from nursery school better than they emerge from the home. I cannot accept that argument.

Mr. Canavan: The hon. Gentleman belongs to a party that supposedly prides itself on the principle of freedom of choice. Should it not be left to the parents to choose whether to send their children to nursery school or a nursery class? Should that choice not be made available to them by the local education authority? The new clause would deprive them further of that choice.

Mr. MacKay: I agree with the hon. Gentleman that our general principle in education is that there should be freedom of choice. The new clause gives local authorities the power to provide nursery

education, but does not make it a duty. Those parents who want nursery education can have it. It is up to the local authorities. Those authorities in areas of greater need, perhaps deprivation, would provide more facilities. That is the role of the local councillor. The lack of confidence that is shown in him by many hon. Members is amazing. They do not think that he could make a reasonable decision about his area. He is in the best position to make a reasonable decision.
I return to the question of disadvantaged children. I have been fair about the report. I wish to refer the House to some recent remarks by Dr. Barbara Tizard. In no way does Dr. Tizard not believe in nursery education. A recent newspaper article states:
Dr. Tizard said she was convinced that nursery schools were needed but that no good could come from propagating the wrong beliefs about their role.
The article quotes Dr. Tizard as saying
Nursery education as it is practiced in this country today is held out as essential for the intellectual development of children. I cannot support that view.
The article goes on to say:
Dr. Tizard said that nursery schools were needed and must not be cut back. But teachers and psychologists were wrong if they believed that:
the home was a less effective learning environment than nursery school;
that the sort of language used in working-class homes is inadequate and has a marked effect on a child's later performance;
that it was more important to provide children with a rich choice of activities than to get them used to completing a task; and that children got more chance to play with adults at nursery schools than at home.
Dr. Tizard believes that the basic assumption that nursery education benefits the educational position of the child is not well founded, and that the evidence does not confirm it. However, to be fair, she believes that nursery education has an important role to play and should be expanded.

Mr. Chris Patten: I understand my hon. Friend to be saying that nursery education, but not the pre-school play group, undermines family life. The best demolition of that argument was in Lord Butler's speech on the Second Reading of the 1944 Act. If anything undermines


family life it is that—unlike the French—we do not have a benefit system that encourages mothers to stay at home.

Mr. MacKay: I am sorry that my speech is flowing rather fast. I thought that my hon. Friend the Member for Bath would be able to watch the water running out. He is obviously back at the position of the 750,000 mothers, out of 2¾ million mothers, who feel that they have to go out to work. He makes a valid point—I am sure that my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer would not be delighted to hear him make it—when he suggests that it would be in the best interests of the family, the mums and the children if we considered ways financially to help mothers to stay at home so that they did not feel obliged to go out to work.

Mr. Canavan: What about child benefits?

Mr. MacKay: The hon. Gentleman interrupts me from his usual sedentary position. The trouble with child benefits is that they do not go to the families who need them most, but go also to other families who do not need them in order that the mother can stay at home and look after the children.
If we continue to advocate more and more nursery education, we will be entering a debate—without actually saying it—about lowering the age at which children start school. That may be a worthwhile debate, but we should have it as the subject of another debate rather than under the guise of expanding or contracting nursery education.
I realise that I have struck a discordant note in the agreement between both sides of the House. I am sure that Opposition Members will not be surprised when they do not find me in the Lobby with them.
The worst that could happen to our society is for the House and educationists to attempt to put across the idea to families and mothers that they are doing their children a favour if they send them to nursery school as early as possible. That would be the wrong thing to do. However, that is what might happen, because many contributions from Opposition Members have suggested just that.

Miss Joan Lestor: Name one.

Mr. MacKay: The intervention by the hon. Member for Penistone. Had the hon. Member for Eton and Slough listened to him she would realise that of all the groups who enter primary 1, nursery children are in the best possible position. If that is the case, let us have a debate about starting school at the age of 4, 3½ or 3. Indeed, it could even be suggested that the children should be taken away once the mother has weaned them so that the professionals could look after them. But that sounds like an advertisement for the Army.
Let us not continue to advocate more and more nursery education and nursery schools if it is to the detriment of the playgroup movement—which is a commendable organisation—based as it is on the role of the family and the mother in relation to the critical role of the under-fives. I am happy to back my right hon. and learned Friend in his amendments on nursery education, although I must admit that my happiness with regard to other parts of the Bill is not quite so unqualified.

Mr. John Maxton: I am aware of the time, and in a debate that has been guillotined we are still due to discuss other parts of the Bill before the closure on this group of amendments. Therefore, I wish to keep my remarks brief.
Those of us who come from Scotland have a problem. This is the only part of the debate that refers directly to Scotland. Therefore, Scottish Members wish to contribute to it. It is perhaps to the Government's shame that in a Bill which in the main covers England and Wales they have included a large section covering Scotland, instead of introducing separate legislation which Scottish Members could debate fully.
There is no dubiety at all in Scotland about whether there is a duty to provide nursery education. There may be some dubiety in England and Wales because of the provisions of the 1944 Act, but, as I read the Education (Scotland) Act 1962, there is no such doubt in Scotland. The fact is that what is happening in Scotland is not a clearing up of the law, but is a straight repeal of the existing duty upon local authorities to provide nursery education.
I have some reservations about the wording of new clause 2, because it refers to:
The duties of an education authority under section 1 of the Education (Scotland) Act 1962".
The House should know quite clearly what that Act says. It says:
It shall be the duty"—
I emphasise the word "duty"—
of every educational authority to secure that adequate and sufficient provision is made throughout their area of all form of primary secondary and further education.
Section 2 defines exactly what is meant by primary education. It states:
In this Act 'primary education" means progressive elementary education in such subjects as may be prescribed in that behalf in regulations made under subsection (2) of the last foregoing section, regard being had to the age, ability and aptitude of the pupils concerned, and includes—
(a) training by appropriate methods in schools and classes (hereinafter referred to as 'nursery schools' and 'nursery classes') for pupils between the age of two years and such later age as may be permitted by the said regulations".
However, section 2(3) states:
The provision of primary education in nursery schools and nursery classes shall be deemed to be adequate if such provision is made at centres where sufficient children whose parents desire such education for them can be enrolled to form a school or class of a reasonable size".
That is clear cut, and it is absolute in law. Under the 1962 Act local authorities have a duty—not a responsibility—to provide nursery education. I am sure that many Scottish Members feel that today's debate is about an education Bill covering England and Wales, and perhaps they are not aware that this new clause, which has been inserted at this late stage, will influence nursery education in Scotland as well as in England and Wales.
That has occurred at a time when, as my hon. Friend, the Member for West Stirlingshire (Mr. Canavan) made clear, the demographic trends are towards a decline in the number of children below the age of 5, and now below the age of 10. As a result, we shall have primary schools with a small number of pupils, and classrooms and teachers will be available. This is not the time to take away the duty of education authorities to provide nursery education. It is the time to expand it, because facilities exist in

primary schools that can be used to set up nursery classes.
Now is the time to do that. If it is done now, it can be done reasonably cheaply. I never like having education on the cheap, but on this occasion we could provide nursery education for all who desire it. I emphasise that point to the hon. Member for Argyll (Mr. Mackay). The local authority in the constituencies of the hon. Member for Argyll and myself is Labour-controlled and will ensure that nursery education continues, but others will not. This is the ideal time to provide such education. There should be a programme of expansion, not a cut-back, as the new clause implies.

The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Alexander Fletcher): With permission, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I should like to intervene briefly and make some references to the differences with regard to Scottish legislation. My right hon. and learned Friend will shortly wind up the debate, but in his opening speech he referred to the Bill as it applies to Scotland. In other words, the intention is to restate the law on the provision of nursery education.
The hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Maxton) quoted from section 1 of the Education (Scotland) Act 1962, which says that an education authority in Scotland has a duty:
to secure that adequate and sufficient provision is made throughout their area
of school education. School education, as defined in the Act, includes activities in nursery schools and classes of a kind that are suitable for pupils who are under school age. Therefore, there is no doubt that education authorities in Scotland have a duty in relation to the provision of school education and nursery schools and classes. But, thereafter, the Act does not elaborate on the extent of the duty. To that extent, the hon. Gentleman quoted from the 1962 Act before it was amended by the 1969 Act.
In practice, therefore, as in England and Wales, education authorities vary as to the level of provision that they have made for nursery education, perhaps because they have been under the impression that they have a discretion in the matter and not a defined duty. In addition, circumstances vary from one area


to another. There is, therefore, the same need as there is south of the border to bring the law into line with what it has apparently been assumed to be.

Mr. Kinnock: Was not the hon. Gentleman present earlier when his right hon. and learned Friend said that the need was for clarification, because in England and Wales there was a responsibility rather than a duty? The Under-Secretary is now saying that it is not so much a responsibility as a duty, although it is not an effective duty because the degree of provision is not laid down. Is not the natural progression from that argument to specify the duty and the degree of duty rather than to remove the duty altogether?

Mr. Fletcher: I agree with the hon. Gentleman that there is a duty. The extent to which that duty should be further clarified is one of the purposes of the new clause. As I have just said, the provision varies. Most people assume that local authorities in Scotland have a power or discretion in this matter rather than a duty. There has been some misunderstanding on that matter. We make the clear point in the amendment that there is a power and not a duty. The discretion that people thought they had in this respect is now being clarified in the legislation. I am glad that the hon. Gentlemen agree. The difference between the new clause that affects England and Wales and the new clause that we propose arises largely from the differences in the wording of the existing Scots legislation and that for England and Wales.
I make three brief points. I repeat the assurance that was given by my right hon. and learned Friend that there has been no change of mind on the Government's part about the importance of nursery education.
It has been interesting to listen to some of the comments made. For example, the hon Member for Gower (Mr. Davies) referred to the number of children in nursery education. The number of children in Scotland receiving nursery education increased substantially from about 14,000 in September 1972 to almost 32,000 in September 1979. It is significant, in the light of those remarks, that the number of children in playgroups in Scotland is now about 45,000, so that the voluntary side of this important activity

has been capable of expanding at an even faster rate in this period than the schools side.
We in Scotland decided not to introduce charges for nursery education. There is no need for us to introduce an amendment to bring the closure of nursery schools within the Secretary of State's control. Under section 22 of the Education (Scotland) Act 1962, Scottish education authorities already require the Secretary of State's approval before they can discontinue any educational establishment, or part of an educational establishment, under their management. That provision includes nursery schools and classes.
Those were the distinct Scottish points in the debate. I ask the House to agree to new clause 2.

Mr. Flannery: It is sad that the Conservative Party does not admit that the aim of the new clause is, first, as the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) said, to get Oxfordshire off the hook, and, secondly, to enable any council that wants to do so to abandon completely nursery education—in other words, to save money by hurting the youngest members of our community. Government supporters know that as well as the Opposition do. We tried to point that out. However, when so much hypocrisy emanates from Government supporters, it must be shown clearly to the press and those listening exactly what the Government are up to.
Up to the point when it became necessary to say which way they were voting, one would have thought that Government supporters were talking about the expansion of nursery education. They all realise how profoundly the people in this country believe in nursery education. They pay lip-service to that principle. They speak as though they want to expand such education. They realise how important it is, and then they go on to say that they will vote for the new clause. Every one of them—they are not fools—knows that this new clause is destined to strike a deadly blow at the whole of nursery education. Every teacher here—even Tory teachers—knows that that will happen and that the way is now being paved for it to happen.
My hon. Friend the Member for Eton and Slough (Miss Lestor) said that this was the beginning of immobilising nursery education in this country. It will go on from there as long as we have such a reactionary Government. It was pointed out that if the sum of £50 million or £60 million that is to be filched from our people, and the funds to be provided for the so-called assisted places scheme were given to the expansion of nursery education, there would be some sense in it.
6.45 pm
The reality is that any teacher knows that one wants a one-to-one relationship when teaching. We need small classes in the nursery schools. The child has left the most important person in his life—his mother. He has to get into a long queue—if indeed any nursery education is available. Every teacher knows that small classes benefit the children. Later on in the pupils' education the teachers can tell the difference between those who received nursery education and those who did not.
There were nearly 100 hours of debate on the Bill in Committee. This clause was never mentioned. After the Committee stage the Government's advisers pointed out to them that they could make a killing on saving money out of the little children. The Tories then introduced a further cut in education by introducing the new clause—against which the Opposition will vote later.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman says that he will introduce clarity. To whom does he think he is talking when he says that? He is introducing a major cut in education under the guise of clarity. The unclear law that he intends to clarify is far better than the so-called clear law that he is imposing on us. If he says that he is rectifying the law, that is up to him. However, he will move it in the opposite direction, not by giving us clarity, but by preventing us from providing nursery education even when we want to do so.

Mr. Mark Carlisle: Will the hon. Gentleman kindly tell me—I know that he will tell me truthfully—what his view was of the present law until I put down the amendment? Did he think that there was a duty or a discretion?

Mr. Flannery: I was on the point of reading the exact part of the 1944 Act and then giving it my interpretation. It says:
(2) In fulfilling their duties under this section, a local education authority shall, in particular, have regard—
(b) to the need for securing that provision is made for pupils who have not attained the age of five years by the provision of nursery schools or, where the authority consider the provision of such schools to be inexpedient, by the provision of nursery classses in other schools;".
When it says "have regard to" it does not mean "disregard". "Having regard to" means providing the classes. If the right hon. and learned Gentleman thinks that "having regard to" is a mental exercise—that one reads the clause, thinks about it, and does nothing—that is up to him. To me "having regard to" means having nursery education. That is what most authorities have done—even the Tory authorities that had neglected to take up their allocations in the past few years. Therefore, a statutory duty has been violated by successive Governments.
Many hon. Members would support the right hon. and learned Gentleman if he were to clarify that law by making it clear that the provision of nursery education is a duty, as it is in Scotland.

Mr. Mark Carlisle: May I ask the hon. Gentleman to be clear about this? Is he now saying that it has always been his view that there was a duty rather than merely a power to provide education for the under-fives? If so, before he answers will he remember that he led a deputation to see me about this matter on one occasion?

Mr. Flannery: That has always been my opinion, although it has not always been the opinion of every member of the Opposition. I was chairman of the national advisory committee on primary schools of the National Union of Teachers. All through that time I interpreted that clause in the way that I have just put it. However, it is not merely my opinion. I refer to The Times Educational Supplement editorial of the past week. The Minister has read it. In big black print it is called:
A bad Bill which will positively harm education.


Under the heading "Nursery Education" it talks about "this miserable Bill" and further on it refers to
This ill-considered ragbag of a Bill.
Those are not my words, but those of The Times Educational Supplement.
Winston Churchill once described The Times as the three penny edition of the Daily Worker. I am sure that many Government supporters will come to regard that august journal, The Times Educational Supplement, in a similar light. The editorial takes the Government to task for cheating on education and harming the youngest of our children.
It has been said that 20 per cent. of children under 5 who are not in nursery classes are in junior schools. Those are the children who, possibly for one term before going to the junior school, go into an infant class. Children who have had that extra term are nearly always better at reading than are the children who come in a term later.
According to the front page of The Times Educational Supplement, the provision of nursery education is now discretionary rather than a legal duty, the law is to be changed, and the statutory duty will go. It interprets the provision in the 1944 Act as a statutory duty, just as I do.

Mr. Mark Carlisle: May I ask the hon. Gentleman the question that I asked before? I have a vivid recollection of that meeting. Is he saying that before I put down the amendment he believed that there was a statutory duty to provide education for the under-fives, or did he believe that part of the reason why there was not adequate provision was that the powers of the local authority in this respect were completely discretionary?

Mr. Flannery: I believed that. The deputation that I led was of the ASTMS, not the NUT, and it was to ask the Secretary of State whether he would charge for nursing education. He assured me that he would not. I am not sure whether he knows that he will not. He thinks that he will not, but I think that the time will come when he will charge.
The clause will inflict severe damage on the educational chances of that most vulnerable section of the community, small children under 5 years of age. It strikes

a terrible blow against the foundation of education.
It has been said that about 19 per cent. of youngsters go to nursery school. I think that the figure is about 18 per cent., but that percentage is under attack. Tory Members say that they are in favour of the expansion of nursery education. Do they think that there will be an expansion in Oxfordshire? That authority has said flatly that it will kill nursery education. Do Tory members, who weep crocodile tears about nursery education and say they want expansion, realise that when the clause goes through and Oxfordshire gets away with it all Tory authorities throughout the country will wade in and save cash on nursery education?
The Secretary of State is carrying out orders from on high given by a former Secretary of State for Education and Science, who seeks by devices of all kinds to cut down on nursery education and education in general to save money. Let us be quite clear. The aim of the clause is to save money at the expense of the youngest members of our community by curtailing nursery education.

Mrs Renée Short: I am concerned about the ill-informed, misleading and patronising speech made by the hon. Member for Argyll (Mr. Mackay). He said that he had never been inside a nursery school; he did not know the difference between a play group and a nursery school and he was attempting to divide the House on an issue that is not before us.
I am sorry that the Secretary of State has not seized the opportunity to make nursery education part of the statutory system. Had he had the courage to do so he would have won the applause of the Opposition. It is part of the Labour Party's policy to provide nursery education for all children between the ages of 3 and 5 whose parents wish it.
We have heard patronising talk about mums farming their children out to nursery schools and dodging their obligations. What do Tory Members think about parents who farm out their children to boarding schools or prep schools and so dodge their obligations?
My constituency has been fortunate in having a Labour-controlled authority for many years which has provided a number of nursery schools and nursery classes.


The authority has converted old primary schools into marvellous new nursery schools and a considerable proportion of young children are able to enjoy nursery education. I defy those who say that there is no difference between children who have been to nursery school and those who have not. All teachers say that children who have been to nursery school are more poised, better developed, more articulate and more self-confident than children who have not had that opportunity.
There are two organisations which are largely responsible for building up a massive head of steam behind the demand for nursery education. They are the Campaign for Nursery Education and the former Nursery Schools Association which is now the British Association for Early Childhood Education. That body has not developed since before the time of the previous Labour Government. It is about 60 years old and it is very disappointed in the lack of progress towards nursery education by Governments of both parties during its lifetime.
The occasion when the former Secretary of State for Education and Science—the present Prime Minister—brought forward her White Paper on education in 1972 was a red letter day for nursery education. We thought we had arrived. We know better now. It would be salutary for the hon. Member for Argyll to read his leader's White Paper. It sets out the aims and objectives of nursery education and provided the starting point for many of us who were working in education although not in the House.
Another women Minister responsible for education, Florence Horsbrugh, produced a notorious circular, 8/60, which condemned the provision of nursery education to remain at the low level it was in 1957. For years teachers and enthusiasts for nursery education campaigned to have that circular removed. The Prime Minister removed it in her White Paper of 1972. We thought that was a milestone and that we would surge ahead with an expansion of nursery education. The Secretary of State of the day set out the advantages for the development of practical and social skills that stem from nursery education. Children in the deprived urban and rural areas were in-

cluded because their needs were equally great.
7 pm
Another advantage of nursery education is, as the White Paper said, the indentification of children with special difficulties, such as those who are mentally handicapped or who have psychological or medical problems who could benefit from being with a group of ordinary children. Paragraph 28 of the White Paper said:
All children can gain from nursery education.
That should be the Secretary of State's guiding light, but he has extinguished that light. The White Paper went on:
but it is particularly valuable for children whose home and life are restricted, for whatever reason.
All these important concepts and precepts concerning nursery education have clearly been thrown overboard by this Government. It is a tragedy that it is a Government led by a former Secretary of State for Education, now the Prime Minister, who have also thrown over the great ideals and inspiration that lay behind the presentation of that valuable White Paper.
I remind the House that the Plowden report estimated that demand for nursery places by the year 1981, which is next year, would rise to 700,000 full-time equivalent places. We are far from reaching that kind of provision. With the new clause we shall clearly proceed much more slowly. I suggest that he has put the clock back to what it was before 1972.
Members of the Oxfordshire Campaign for Nursery Education group who came to the House to lobby today are rightly worried about what will happen. What will the Minister say when a local education authority asks for permission to close a nursery school and tells him that it is because he—he said this at the beginning of his speech—is restricting its resources to the level of 1979–80? It will not have the resources to maintain its nursery schools at their present level and certainly will be unable to expand them. Inflation and the rising cost of materials will starve them of the resources required to enable them to continue. Will the Secretary of State say "All right: I will find more money so that you can keep your nursery schools running"; or will he say "You can close them down"? The


prospect for nursery education is grim and I hope that the whole House will vote against the new clause.

Dr. Oonagh McDonald: I find it ironic that just as the wonderful discovery has apparently been made that all along the 1944 Act laid an obligation on local authorities to provide nursery education, the Secretary of State's contribution is to seek to withdraw it. Having gathered to himself a fig-leaf of protection by saying that he will have to give permission for a nursery school to be closed, what will the Secretary of State do to encourage the increase of nursery education and save the position in some areas? For example, education for the rising fives is severely threatened as many LEAs are considering proposals not to admit them so that they can save money. The LEAs concerned include Avon, Surrey, Warwickshire, Gateshead and Newcastle. The right hon. and learned Gentleman's fig-leaf will not protect him. What will the Secretary of State be able to say to these LEAs as they pursue these plans during the coming financial year?
The Secretary of State's hon. Friend the Member for Brent, North (Dr. Boyson) said, in a written answer on 22 October 1979, that this year the number of nursery places would rise from 210,000 to 220,000 and in the following year they would rise to 226,000. How will the Secretary of State encourage the spread and increase of nursery education, having removed the alleged statutory duty from the 1944 Act? What will he do about recalcitrant LEAs, many of which have made only minimal provision for nursery education for a long time? Let me just tell the House which they are. The list includes Bexley, Bromley, Croydon, Havering, Redbridge, Richmond-upon-Thames, Devon, Dorset, East Sussex, Essex, Hampshire, Hereford and Worcester, Kent, Lincolnshire, Somerset, Suffolk, and Gloucestershire with none at all. I am reading out only a list of the worst offenders because most of these authorities provide nursery education for less than 10 per cent. of the population of three and four year olds. That estimate was given in January 1979.
What will the Secretary of State do with local authorities like those I have listed? How will he encourage them to increase nursery education when he has

made clear his real attitude towards nursery education by putting forward the new clause? The Secretary of State's right hon. Friends in the Treasury are busy taking the cash away and he is busy taking away any encouragement or obligation there might have been under the 1944 Act. What will the Secretary of State do about offending LEAs which are worse than those I have mentioned and which include counties such as Avon which, during five years of Labour government had access to part of £50 million which the Labour Government made available for nursery school building programmes? What will the right hon. and learned Gentleman do about those LEAs that turned up their noses at that provision not just in one year but during the whole five years?
Will the Secretary of State match the provision made by the Labour Government during their period in office? I do not think that the amount provided was enough, but in the four years between 1974 and 1978 the Labour Government made £51 million available in loan sanctions under the nursery education building programme. During 1978–79 the amount was almost £4·5 million, and we actually planned to make over £14 million available for the years 1979–80. So if we had won the election at least the smallest children in our community would have had a much better deal.
I admit that the Labour Government did not do all that those of us within the Parliamentary Labour Party wanted by way of providing places for nursery education, but at least the number of places rose from approximately 121,000 at the beginning of our period of office to 198,000 by the time we left office. It was an increase. More places were made available. I agree that not enough places were made available and that not enough cash was set aside for the nursery school building programme. However, the offenders I have listed are, in almost every case, Tory-controlled authorities. They must be waiting with glee for the new clause to be passed because they know they will be able to sweep away any notion of an obligation that they may have had to provide this type of education.
Like all the Tory spending cuts, this is not even sensible. One thing that I


have noticed about all the cuts in expenditure planned for the coming year and the following years is that they are shortsighted and stupid. They appear to cut costs and make savings but other services will have to pick up the costs elsewhere either immediately or at a later date.
Let us consider what Halsey has said recently about nursery school education:
a pre-school programme, properly devised, can be a most economical investment for a government wishing to save money on schools.
It is a good investment for a Government who wish to improve education standards at the same time. If we wish to save money on education, we must lay a firm foundation in nursery education. It is cost-effective in the long run. However, when the Tories come to saving money they think only in the short term. They cannot see beyond the end of next week or beyond this year's balance sheet.
Why would the Government be laying such a firm foundation with good nursery education? I refer to a study that has recently been undertaken on the Headstart programme in the United States. Over recent years the programme has been much criticised. Scorn has been poured on it. It has been said that the programme achieved nothing. However, a proper long-term assessment of the programme has been carried out.
The study led to four results. First, it indicated that in narrow education terms—there are other benefits from nursery education—those who took part in the programme were much less likely to be assigned later to special or remedial classes.
Secondly, the study revealed that those who had taken part in the programme were much less inclined to drop out from school at a later date or, in the American system, have to repeat a year's work because of poor performance.
Thirdly, the study indicated that the achievement in mathematics at the age of 10 was significantly improved through nursery education—namely through the Headstart programme.
Fourthly, children from poorer families who took part in the programme scored higher than those with whom they were compared.
All those benefits were achieved by a properly constructed programme of education. That answers the nonsense uttered by the hon. Member for Argyll (Mr. Mackay). The pre-school playgroup is valuable, but it cannot replace a properly structured programme of education. It cannot provide education benefits in the years to come. It may provide some of the social benefits of a nursery school, but it cannot provide the education benefits, especially for poorer children.
The hon. Gentleman referred to Dr. Barbara Tizard's research. In my view he entirely misrepresented her. Her conclusions stemmed from a programme which she carried out and which was financed by the Department of Education and Science. The project was focused on encouraging parental involvement in nursery schools. There was another project on adult-child language at school and at home. Dr. Tizard concluded that nursery schools should not impose alien middle class cultures on working class children and should not seek to restrict the type of language that the children use at home while at school. The hon. Gentleman entirely misrepresented Dr. Tizard's work. She was considering the sort of education that should be received in nursery schools. She emphasised the importance of parental involvement.
The hon. Member for Argyll referred to the number of children who have working mothers. He ignored two features. First, he ignored the fact that about 90 per cent. of mothers—that is the percentage according to most surveys—would prefer their children to attend nursery schools at the age of 3 years or 4 years. There are some who would prefer their children to attend such schools at a younger age. A high percentage of mothers wish their children to obtain nursery education. Secondly, the hon. Gentleman entirely ignored the wish of many mothers who are at present at home with young children to go to work. Many would do so if proper nursery education and nursery care facilities were made available for them.
7.15 pm
My right hon. and hon. Friends are not suggesting that parents should be coerced to send their children to school at 3 years or 4 years. My view is that most children


are ready to move outside the home for at least part of the day at that age. In that way, children especially those from poorer families, can derive enormous education benefits. It is vital that nursery education be made available.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman is running away from any hint that there may be a statutory obligation. He offers no explanation of how his party proposes to fulfil its wish to provide nursery education so that each child may progress as far as his or her abilities allow. Instead he allows his right hon. and hon. Friends in the Treasury to cut the ground from under his feet as they busily slash his budget for the coming financial year. I hope that my right hon. and hon. Friends and some Conservative Members will oppose the new clause.

Mr. Allen McKay: I believe that education should start at the age of 3 years and that it should never stop. I have held that belief for many years. I advanced that argument to Sir Alec Clegg about 22 years ago. Sir Alec accused me—the hon. Member for Argyll (Mr. Mackay) has made a similar accusation—of taking children out of mothers' arms. I spoke to Sir Alec not long ago. I reminded him of our encounter 22 years ago and it appears that he has altered his attitude. Many others have altered their views on nursery education. That is why I am disappointed by the Secretary of State's statement. I have always considered the statutory obligation to start at the age of 5 years. Had I known what the right hon. and learned Gentleman stated, I am sure that there would have been more nursery classes within the area represented by my local authority. The argument has always been presented to me that the statutory obligation began at 5 years.
Those in the area that I represent have seen the benefits of nursery education. It is in the old West Riding area, an area that devoted most of its resources to secondary education. The only benefit that we derived from local government reorganisation was the opportunity to pour resources into nursery education. That gave me the opportunity to witness something that I have wanted for most of my life, namely, education from 3 years to 18-plus in my locality.
Nursery education has presented opportunities to many children. I do

not decry or seek to undermine playgroups, which perform a valuable role. I applaud the work that they undertake. However, I sometimes think that they exist merely to fill the vacuum that is created by not having nursery education. The development of a child is apparent when he or she attends nursery school. That is not merely my view; it is the view of many parents. I have had the opportunity to witness that development.
A study was undertaken at Sheffield university, which indicated that a person who had attended a nursery school had an opportunity that was more or less equal to that enjoyed by someone who went to a public school. The study revealed that that was the result when both persons started their working lives. The study took into account all the facets of attending a nursery school and a public school—the education of mind and body.
I applaud the Secretary of State's statement on special provision in existing schools. There are education authorities that have space within their junior schools that could be used to offer the special provision to which the right hon. and learned Gentleman referred. In many instances authorities have refused to make that provision, and facilities for nursery education have not been made available. I do not want secondhand nursery education, but there is the opportunity for progressive authorities to make provision.
I have discussed these matters with the education authority in my constituency. Those representing the authority said that toilet facilities were too high above the ground in their schools for children who would receive nursery education. I started school at about 2¾ years, coming up 3 years. That is why I have been a believer in children starting school at the age of 3. If the toilets were not low enough the children stood on two bricks. That did not detract from the education facilities.
I would like the Secretary of State to tell me what is his definition of a class. He tells us that decisions on nursery school closures are for him. Will he say what is a nursery school and what is a nursery class? Is a nursery class something that exists in a nursery school, or must it be a separate entity? It is important that we should define our terms.


in order to prevent future argument. I am grateful for the Secretary of State's assurance that no charges will be made. This Government are already charging sufficient for various services.
I would prefer the legislation to have been left alone because that would have forced those authorities that are not committed to nursery education at least to take cognisance of it. My other fear is that under the Government's commitment to cut public spending, nursery education will suffer most severely. By far the largest part of any local authority budget is earmarked for education. I know what will happen when the excuse and opportunity to pull out is given to some local authorities. Nursery education will be one of the first sectors to suffer under the pressure for expenditure cuts. If we believe in nursery education it would be far better to proceed with existing legislation. That would be more beneficial for our education system.

Mr. Harry Ewing: For four and a half hours we have debated one of the most important subjects to come before the House for a considerable time. I want to place two facts on record. First, the Opposition have already registered their protest about the lateness of the hour at which these new clauses were introduced. It is an outrage that the House should be asked to debate these new clauses under a guillotine when the future of nursery education is at stake.
My second point is that the Government fought the general election with posters which could be seen throughout Great Britain, containing the slogan that education was not working. These new clauses are designed to prevent nursery education from working in the future.
One or two issues have become clear in the debate. If there was any confusion in England and Wales about the 1944 Education Act and whether local authorities regarded themselves as having a duty or a discretion, there was no confusion in Scotland. Clearly spelt out in the Education (Scotland) Act 1963 was the duty imposed on local authorities to provide nursery education. There was absolutely no doubt about the position in Scotland.
The reason why I highlight the difference is that the Secretary of State has interrupted this debate nearly half a dozen times and has asked my right hon. and hon. Friends whether they believed that local authorities in England and Wales had a duty or a discretion. I suspect that those interruptions were meant to be a clever device to try to portray the fact that—

Mr. Chris Patten: It is a good question.

Mr. Ewing: Yes, it is a good question, and I am about to answer it. The hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Patten) knows that that city has had its fair share of educational problems in the last three or four years. I know something of the educational system in Bath. However, I return to the Secretary of State, who posed a fair question. If he had any commitment to nursery education the Bill would entrench not the discretion of local authorities in this matter but their duty.
In entrenching the discretion of local authorities the Secretary of State gives the game away. That discretion specifically allows local authorities that do not wish to provide nursery education not to provide it. That covers the position of Oxfordshire county council and thus gets the right hon. Gentlemen's friends in that authority off the hook, apropos what was said by the Attorney-General in considering that case.
There is no commitment to nursery education here. These clauses entrench discretion. If there was any commitment by the Government, they would have entrenched the duty and not the discretion. The game is given away, because the purpose of these new clauses is to change the law. There is no doubt about that. The purpose of new clauses 1 and 2 is to change the law. It is a disgrace that under a guillotine those clauses should be introduced into the Bill to bring about major changes in the law, with all that that means for nursery education.
The Secretary of State for Education and Science and the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, the hon. Member for Edinburgh, North (Mr. Fletcher) made the point that education authorities would not be able to close nursery schools without the permission of the Secretary of State for Education and Science in


England and Wales and the Secretary of State for Scotland. I hope that I have the postition right, namely, that the procedures that pertain to both primary and secondary schools will also relate to nursery schools on the question of closure. I understand that the proposals must be advertised, that parents have the right to object, that objections will be heard and that the authorities will have to submit the matter to the Secretary of State, who will ultimately decide the issue.
That is an improvement on the position as we understood it before the debate. I concede that to the Ministers. But the problem was highlighted of the nursery class within a primary school where that primary school is to be closed. Amendment No. 90 should be accepted by the Secretary of State because it would take care of the position where a nursery class is contained within a primary school and there is a proposal to close that school. In our view the Secretary of State should insist that the nursery facilties in that primary school should be replaced in suitable premises in the same locality before any further consideration is given to the question of closing the school.
I emphasise that this debate is not about playgroups. They do a marvellous job, and the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland laid emphasis on them in what we considered an inadequate intervention. He stressed the value of playgroups. But this debate is about nursery education, not about playgroups. The Government will not get off the hook because Ministers call in aid the fact that playgroups do a good job. We want an assurance from the Secretary of State that he will consider—even if not tonight—amendment No. 90 before the Bill goes to another place. That amendment safeguards the position of the nursery class which operates within a primary school.
The other point that I wish to raise with the Secretary of State for Education and Science and the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, and through him the Secretary of State for Scotland, is that we have heard a great deal about the number of primary schools to be closed in Scotland. The Under-Secretary of State boasts that he will close down over 200 primary schools in Scotland.

Mr. Alexander Fletcher: That comment is completely unjustified. I made

no such boast and I have never mentioned a number. The hon. Gentleman knows that the initiative for closing primary schools lies with local authorities, and that they require the permission of the Secretary of State. The hon. Gentleman should withdraw his remark.

Mr. Ewing: The initiative may well lie with local authorities, but the decision lies with the Secretary of State. Whether he likes it or not, the Under-Secretary has given a clear impression throughout Scotland that the schools are overstaffed and that a number will have to close down. If the Minister wants evidence as to where and when he said that, I suggest that he reads the speech that he made in October at the Hamilton college of education to the parent-teacher council. He will read that he told that council that he was determined that a number of schools would close. He should remember his words and be sure of what he says.
7.30 pm
I come to the proposal to close schools. I put it to the Secretary of State for Education and Science and to the Secretary of State for Scotland that if there is a need for nursery education in the area where it is proposed to close down a primary school, that school should not be closed but should be used to meet that need. A great deal has been said about the White Paper that was produced in 1972 by the Prime Minister, a former Secretary of State for Education and Science. Whether the present Secretary of State likes it or not, the tenor of the White Paper was a commitment to nursery education. I invite the House to read that White Paper and see the clear indication that the then Secretary of State was anxious to make it a duty to ensure that nursery education would be freely available.
I was grateful to the Secretary of State for Education and Science and to the Under-Secretary for the indication that it is not proposed to charge for nursery education. I accept that statement at face value, and if that is the case there is no reason why both amendments should not be accepted. After all, it is clearly written into part I of the Education (Scotland) Act 1962 that
junior colleges under the management of an education authority shall be without payment of fees".


If in 1962 it was accepted to be a good idea to write into legislation that we should not charge for that service, surely in 1980 it is not such a bad idea to adopt the same procedure and accept both amendments. That will make clear the fact that no charges will be made.
Even the Secretary of State must admit that the argument in favour of nursery education in this debate has been won hands down by Opposition Members. Indeed, a number of Conservative Members, particularly the hon. Members for Bath and for Ealing, North (Mr. Greenway), have made speeches which indicate that they should be in our Lobby tonight. I do not know how several other Conservative Members can bring themselves to vote for these new clauses. In their speeches they showed a clear commitment to nursery education. The hon. Member for Bath was particularly unhappy with the Secretary of State. Perhaps the Secretary of State will make him happier when he winds up the debate. However, I suspect that he and some of his hon. Friends will be led naturally into our Lobby rather than into the Government Lobby.
Let me say again that what is at stake tonight is the future of nursery education. It is a most outrageous action for any Government to introduce these proposals in a slip-shod way into a Bill when, as my hon. Friend the Member for West Stirlingshire (Mr. Canavan) said, they are about to undermine the whole fabric of nursery education. That is why I have no hesitation in urging my right hon. and hon. Friends to vote against the new clauses. Even more important, I appeal to Conservative Members with progressive thoughts on education to join us in the Lobby. They may be striking a blow against their Government, but it will be a small blow when compared with the major blow that will be struck at nursery education. They will have to decide whether to support the Government's cuts in public expenditure at the expense of the weakest in the community.
As my hon. Friend the Member for West Stirlingshire said, the smaller they are the harder the Government hits them. Conservative Members must decide whether they believe that the Government's monitory and economic policy should be exercised at the expense of Britain's three and four-year-olds, or

whether education is more important. I suspect that in their heart of hearts they believe that education is more important, and I hope that they will join us in the Lobby.

Mr. Chris Patten: The tenor of the argument that was put by several of my hon. Friends and myself was that the clauses do not make a scrap of difference to the provision of nursery education. Of course, we are in favour or nursery education, but there will not be more nursery schools until there are more resources to pay for them. That is the point. The clause clarifies the situation. I argued that it did not need clarifying, anyway.

Mr. Ewing: How I wish that were true! The truth of the matter is that the clauses radically change the situation. The hon. Member for Bath is even more naïve than I appreciated. If he believes that his right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State comes here to incur the wrath of the House over these two new clauses because they do not mean anything, he has a great deal to learn in parliamentary terms. The clauses mean a great deal. The reason why I make the point about the number of primary schools which the Government are determined to close is that there is a golden opportunity to do a great deal for nursery education without necessarily incurring the massive amount of resources which the hon. Member for Bath seems to believe are necessary.
I am content to rest my argument on what I have said and what has been said by right hon. and hon. Friends who have brought their expert knowledge to the subject. I hope that even at this late hour the Secretary of State will see the wisdom of what we have been saying and withdraw the new clauses. If he refuses to withdraw them, I invite the House to vote them down.

Mr. Canavan: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. In view of the inadequate brief intervention by the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland and in view of the differences between the legislation in Scotland, on the one hand, and England and Wales on the other, will the Solicitor-General for Scotland make an authoritative statement about the legal aspects of the matter, now that he is making one of his infrequent visits to the Chamber?

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bernard Weatherill): That is ingenious, but in no sense is it a point of order.

Mr. Mark Carlisle: With the leave of the House, I shall reply briefly to the debate. I know that the hon. Member for Stirling, Falkirk and Grangemouth (Mr. Ewing) would like to leave some time to debate the next clause. The hon. Member seemed unsure of what I was saying about sub-amendment (a), although the hon. Member for Stockport, North (Mr. Bennett) accepted it. The fact is that it is totally otiose, because the law already provides in the Education Act 1944 that:
No fees shall be charged in respect of admission to any school maintained by a local education authority…or in respect of the education provided in any such school.
If there were any question of charging, I should have to bring amending legislation to the House. However, I have anounced that I do not intend to charge, and the present law does not allow me to do so.
The second point that the hon. Gentleman made, which was also made by the hon. Member for Bolton, West (Mrs. Taylor) was about the reasons why the clauses came to the House at the time and in the way they have done. I thought it much better to table the clauses at this stage, where they could be debated on Report. The alternative would have been to have taken them into a guillotined Bill in Committee. In that way, they might not have been discussed at all. Then, I should have been much more open to attack than by bringing them in at Report stage, where they can be voted upon on the Floor of the House and where we can agree to extend the matter by another two hours.
My third point is that I have accepted all along that I am changing the law. As far as England and Wales are concerned, the law makes it clear that in future there shall merely be a power rather than a duty to provide education for those under 5. I am changing the law so that it becomes as people have always believed it to be. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Penistone (Mr. McKay), because he had the frankness to admit that he had always believed, and been advised, that there was no statutory duty. He also had the kindness and frankness to appreciate my remarks about charging.
I must turn to the speech by the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mr. Flannery). Frankly, I was appalled at what he said. I remember the time when he came to my room with the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Maxton) and one other person. They argued that I should not agree to charge for education for childen under 5. Secondly, they argued that I should consider turning the discretionary power into a duty The hon. Member for Hillsborough put the case. However, when I specifically asked him, he stood up and said that he had always believed that there was a duty. I am bound to say that that does not accord with my recollection of the conversation.
To prove his case, the hon. Member then chose to call into account the leading article in The Times Educational Supplementof last week. I totally agree that the article is a clear attack on me and on the Bill. The hon. Member said that that proved that The Times Educational Supplement believed also that there was a duty. The Times Educational Supplement states—I take the words that the hon. Member used against me—that:
The crowning irony of this miserable Bill is that it has to be amended to diminish the 1944 Education Act nursery school provision. Mr. Carlisle can hardly be blamed for this. Until Oxfordshire went mad everybody had supposed that LEAs had discretion in regard to local nursery education.
The hon. Member for Hillsborough said that he had believed that it was a statutory duty despite the deputation that he brought to me. He also claimed that The Times Educational Supplementheld that view. On what basis does he say that? He bases his claim on a headline on the front page that announces that the statutory duty was to be changed into a power. The previous week The Times Educational Supplement had said that the Department agreed that a statutory duty existed.

Mr. Flannery: Despite what the right hon. Gentleman says, I did believe what I said I believed. We can dispute that for ever. However, on the front of the Educational Supplement it says,
Nursery Law To Be Changed.
Underneath it says, "Statutory Duty Will Go." That is what I quoted. I did not say that it had said that in the editorial. That is on the front page.

Mr. Carlisle: The Times Educational Supplement rightly reported the effect of my clause. The law was to be changed to remove a statutory duty. I had publicly stated that it was a statutory duty. The hon. Member for Hillsborough quoted at length from the leading article. He read the heading,
A bad Bill which will positively harm education.
He referred to the comment about "this miserable provision". He said that it confirmed his conviction that it was a duty. However, the editor clearly said,
Until Oxfordshire went mad, everybody had supposed that the LEAs had discretion in regard to local nursery education.
With great respect, the hon. Gentleman must not deliberately mislead the House in that way.
I appreciate and respect the arguments of the hon. Members for Wolverhampton, North-East (Mrs. Short), and Eton and Slough (Miss Lestor). In fairness, the hon. Member for Eton and Slough resigned from the Department of Education and Science as a result of reductions in expenditure on education. I also appreciated the speeches of the hon. Members for Penistone (Mr. McKay) and Thurrock (Dr. McDonald). They have a firm belief in the importance of nursery education. However, the hon. Member for Thurrock must not overdo it. She should not suggest that the Labour Party has a great record and that we have done badly.

Dr. McDonald: I did not say that.

Mr. Carlisle: The hon. Lady said with great pride that between 1974 and 1978 the Labour Party had put such emphasis on nursery education that it had spent £51 million capital. She did not say that they inherited—as I pointed out in my first speech—the plans of my right hon. Friend—now Prime Minister—that were set out in the White Paper of 1972. What did it do with those plans? I quote:
1974–75 capital expenditure proposed £21½ million.
1975–76 capital proposed £17.2 million.
1976–77 capital proposed £9.2 million.
1977–78 capital proposed £2.7 million.
1978–79 capital proposed £4 million and
1979–80 £4 million.
She said that when the Labour Party had been in power it had shown such confidence in the importance of nursery

education that it had managed to spend £51 million. As I said before, she really means that the Labour Government cut the programme by half, over a period of two years, and by two-thirds in the following year.

Dr. McDonald: I am sorry that the right hon. and learned Gentleman has listened with such inconsistency. First, I made it plain that I did not think that the previous Labour Government had done all that they should have done for nursery education. In spite of that, I pointed out that there had been an increase in the number of places. I listed those numbers. Although I pointed out that about £50 million had been made available to the nursery building programme, I was at pains to point out that numerous local education authorities, such as Avon, did not take up that allocation—particularly Tory local education authorities. Avon did not take up any of its allocation during the five-year period. The right hon. and learned Gentleman should not take part of what I said, without taking the whole.

Mr. Carlisle: The hon. Lady specifically made the point that the numbers had increased. She said that £51 million had been provided, as if that had been a major advance by her party. I say to the hon. Member for Thurrock, and to the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, North-East—who spoke of the surge ahead in nursery education as a result of the Prime Minister's White Paper—that we were, of course, committed at that stage to an attempt to put the Plowden report into effect within 10 years. When the Labour Party came into power in 1974, it no doubt wished to continue with that. However, the resources were not available then, nor have they been made available.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bath (Mr. Patten) is right. Whether we have an unenforceable duty on the statute book—as I believe it is—or whether we are honest and admit that it is the power that we believed it to have been, that will not have any effect on the rate of progress towards the type of nursery education that we desire. I do not propose to hold out great hopes; but it is not the wording of the Bill but the resources available to local authorities that will have most effect.
In a restrained and confined financial situation, I have assumed in the rate support grant for the years 1980–81, that there will be an expenditure equivalent to that in the previous year. However, I cannot ensure that the money is used in that way. I have provided for additional expenditure for building.

Mr. Kinnock: For the sake of argument, we shall accept that everyone understood that there had never been a duty, that there had only been a "responsibility" and that awareness of a statutory duty has occured only since the right hon. and learned Gentleman received the advice of the Attorney-General. If he is given the choice between removing any vestige of duty and imposing a clear-cut duty—even within the constraints of limited resources—why has he chosen the former course of deserting the interests of pre-school education?

Mr. Carlisle: I was coming to that point. Resources are the reason. At present resources are not available to carry out the existing statutory duty. Although he may not have intended to, the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) summed the matter up for me, as did the hon. Member for West Stirlingshire (Mr. Canavan). The hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed said that he could not understand why I did not leave it as a duty. He believed that any authority that was genuinely trying to do what it could within the resources available should have no difficulty over duty. I question that assumption.
Since the Haringey case last year, we know that parents can bring an action against a local education authority to enforce a duty. If, for instance, the county of Northumberland—I take Northumberland because it covers the hon. Gentleman's constituency—says in court that it is genuinely trying to do what it can within the resources available, that is no answer to a claim for breach of statutory duty.
It is preferable to come clean with the House. I do not believe that at present it is possible to enforce that statutory duty. It should be converted into a power. We should not muddle on on the premise that a group of parents may decide to test the law, for perfectly legitimate reasons, and as a consequence, find that various coun-

ties are not meeting their statutory obligations. I should then have to concede that this Government and the previous Government have not given them sufficient resources to do so.
Finally, with regard to the Oxfordshire question, I cannot say what will happen about a particular claim that may come to the Department with regard to a section 13 procedure. I believe that the hon. Member for Eton and Slough suggested that I was set upon the destruction of nursery education. If that is so, why should I put in a provision that local education authorities that have nursery schools cannot close them without coming to me? I need not have done that, and local authorities could merely have closed those nursery schools.

Mrs. Ann Taylor: Does that mean that the right hon. and learned Gentleman will accept amendment No. 90, which protects existing nursery schools?

Mr. Carlisle: No. I believe that amendment No. 90 was referred to by the hon. Member for Stirling, Falkirk and Grangemouth. In considering closures, attention must be paid to alternative provisions in the area and to what will happen to the children. However, I do not accept the straitjacket of amendment No. 90.
I believe that most hon. Members would like to see an extension of nursery education over the years.

Miss Joan Lestor: The right hon. and learned Gentleman used what I had said to build a shaky case. If he is not intent or hell-bent on closing nursery schools, why is he saying that any closures will have to come to him? Will he refuse to close certain nursery schools, bearing in mind the scanty provision that exists?

Mr. Carlisle: Requiring closures to come to me will act as a deterrent. The procedure will have to be gone through. Other views will be considered, and the case will be judged on its merits. Had I intended merely to close all nursery schools I should not have put forward the provision, and local authorities would be free to close nursery schools under the other provisions.
I believe that the degree of provision will depend on resources available. Local authorities in difficult times must put first and foremost protection of compulsory schooling for children aged from 5 to 16


years. In the rate support grant proposals for the year 1980–81, and in my speech earlier, I indicated that I very much hoped that local authorities would continue to be able to provide substantial facilities for under-fives. I should be far happier to be in a position to invite them to increase those facilities, but in the present financial situation I cannot.

In the circumstances, it is right to remove an unforceable obligation and replace it by a power that everyone believed existed before today.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—

The House divided: Ayes 294, Noes 244.

Division No. 170]
AYES
[7.55 pm


Adley, Robert
Dorrell, Stephen
Kaberry, Sir Donald


Aitken, Jonathan
Dover, Denshore
Kimball, Marcus


Alexander, Richard
du Cann, Rt Hon Edward
King, Rt Hon Tom


Amery, Rt Hon Julian
Dunn, Robert (Dartford)
Kitson, Sir Timothy


Ancram, Michael
Durant, Tony
Knight, Mrs Jill


Arnold, Tom
Dykes, Hugh
Knox, David


Aspinwall, Jack
Eden, Rt Hon Sir John
Lamont, Norman


Atkins, Robert (Preston North)
Eggar, Timothy
Lang Ian


Atkinson David (B'mouth, East)
Elliott, Sir William
Langford-Holt, Sir John


Baker, Kenneth (St. Marylebone)
Fairbairn, Nicholas
Latham, Michael


Baker, Nicholas (North Dorset)
Fairgrieve, Russell
Lawerence, Ivan


Banks, Robert
Faith, Mrs Sheila
Lee, John


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Farr, John
Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark


Bell, Sir Ronald
Fell, Anthony
Lester, Jim (Beeston)


Bendall, Vivian
Fenner, Mrs Peggy
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)


Benyon, Thomas (Abingdon)
Finsberg, Geoffrey
Llyod, Ian (Havant &amp; Waterloo)


Benyon, W. (Buckingham)
Fisher, Sir Nigel
Llyod, Peter (Fareham)


Best, Keith
Fletcher, Alexander (Edinburgh N)
Loveridge, John


Bevan, David Gilroy
Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Luce, Richard


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Fookes, Miss Janet
Lyell, Nicholas 


Biggs-Davison, John
Forman, Nigel
McCusker, H.


Blackburn, John
Fowler, Rt Hon Norman
Macfarlane, Neil


Blaker, Peter
Fox, Marcus
MacGregor, John


Body, Richard
Fraser, Peter (South Angus)
MacKay, John (Argyll)


Bonsor Sir Nicholas
Fry, Peter,
McNair-Wilson, Michael (Newbury)


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Gardiner George (Reigate)
McNair-Wilson, Patrick (New Forest)


Bottomley peter (woolwich west)
Gardner, Edward (South Fylde)
McQuarrie, Albert


Bowden, Andrew
Garel-Jones, Tristan
Madel David


Boyson, Dr Rhodes
Gilmour, Rt Hon sir Ian
Major, John


Bradford, Rev. R.
Glyn, Dr Alan
Marland, Paul


Braine, Sir Bernard
Goodland, Alastair
Marlow, Tony


Bright, Graham
Gorst, John
Marsall Michael (Arundel)


Brinton, Tim
Gow, Ian
Marten, Neil (Banbury)


Brittan, Leon
Gower, Sir Raymond
Mates, Michael


Brocklebank-Fowler, Christopher
Grant, Anthony (Harrow C)
Mather, Carol


Brooke, Hon Peter
Gray, Hamish
Maude, Rt Hon Angus


Brotherton, Michael
Greenway, Harry
Mawhinney, Dr Brain


Brown, Michael (Brigg &amp; Sc'thorpe)
Grieve, Percy
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin


Browne, John (Winchester)
Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St Edmunds)
Mellor, David


Bruce-Gardyne, John
Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)
Meyer, Sir Anthony


Bryan, Sir Paul
Grist, Ian
Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove &amp; Redditch)


Buck, Antony
Grylls, Michael
Mills, Iain (Meriden)


Budgen, Nick
Gummer, John Selwyn
Mills, Peter (West Devon)


Bulmer, Esmond
Hamilton, Hon Archie (Eps'm&amp;Ew'll)
Miscampbell, Norman


Burden, F.A..
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)


Butcher, John
Hampson, Dr Keith
Moate, Roger


Butler, Hon Adam
Hannam, John
Molyneaux, James


Cadbury, Jocelyn
Haselhurst, Alan
Monro, Hector


Carlisle, John (Luton West)
Hawksley, Warren
Montgomery, Fergus


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Hayhoe, Barney
Moore, John


Carlisle, Rt Hon Mark (Runcorn)
Heddle, John
Morris, Michael (Northampton, Sth)


Chalker, Mrs Lynda
Henderson, Barry
Morrison, Hon Charles (Devizes)


Channon, Paul
Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael
Morrison, Hon Peter (City of Chester)


Chapman, Sydney
Hicks, Robert
Mudd, David


Clark, Hon Alan (Plymouth, Sutton)
Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.
Murphy, Christopher


Clark, Sir William (Croydon South)
Hill, James
Myles, David


Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Hogg, Hon Douglas (Grantham)
Neale, Gerrard


Cockeram, Eric
Holland, Phillip (Carlton)
Needham, Richard


Colvin, Michael
Hordern, Peter
Nelson, Anthony


Cope, John
Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)
Neubert, Michael


Cormack, Patrick
Hunt, David (Wirral)
Newton, Tony


Corrie, John
Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)
Onslow, Cranley


Costain, A.. P.
Hurd, Hon Douglas
Osborn, John


Cranborne, Viscount
Irvine, Charles (Cheltenham)
Page, Rt Hon Sir R. Graham


Critchely, Julian
Jenkin, Rt Hon Patrick
Page, Richard (SW Hertfordshire)


Crouch, David
Johnson Smith, Geoffrey
Parkinson, Cecil


Dean, Paul (North Somerset)
Jopling, Rt Hon Michael
Perris, Matthew 


Dickens, Geoffrey
Joseph, Rt Hon sir Keith
Patten, Christopher (Bath)




Patten, John (Oxford)
Shersby, Michael
Trippier, David


Pattle, Geoffrey
Silvester, Fred
Trotter, Neville


Pawsey, James
Sims, Roger
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Percival, Sir Ian
Skeet, T. H. H.
Vaughan, Dr Gerard


Peyton, Rt Hon John
Smith, Dudley (War, and Leam'ton)
Viggers, Peter


Pink, R. Bonner
Speed, Keith
Waddington, David


Pollock, Alexander
Speller, Tony
Wakeham, John


Porter, George
Spence, John
Waldegrave, Hon William


Powell, Rt Hon J. Enoch (S Down)
Spicer, Jim (West Dorset)
Walker, Bill (Perth &amp; E Perthshire)


Prentice, Rt Hon Reg
Spicer, Michael (S Worcestershire)
Walker-Smith, Rt Hon Sir Derek


Price, David (Eastleigh)
Sproat, Iain
Waller, Gary


Prior, Rt Hon James
Squire, Robin
Walters, Dennis


Proctor, K. Harvey
Stainton, Keith
Ward, John


Raison, Timothy
Stanbrook, Ivor
Warren, Kenneth


Rathbone, Tim
Stanley, John
Watson, John


Rees, Peter (Dover and Deal)
Steen, Anthony
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Rees-Davies, W. R.
Stevens, Martin
Wells, Bowen (Hert'rd &amp; Stev'nage)


Renton, Tim
Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)
Wheeler, John


Rhodes James, Robert
Stewart, John (East Renfrewshire)
Whitney, Raymond


Ridley, Hon Nicholas
Stokes, John
Wickenden, Keith


Ridsdale, Julian
Stradling Thomas, J.
Wiggin, Jerry


Rifkind, Malcolm
Tapsell, Peter
Wilkinson, John


Roberts, Wyn (Conway)
Taylor, Robert (Croydon NW)
Williams, Delwyn (Montgomery)


Ross, Wm. (Londonderry)
Tebbit, Norman
Winterton, Nicholas


Rost, Peter
Temple-Morris, Peter
Wolfson, Mark


Sainsbury, Hon Timothy
Thomas, Rt Hon Peter (Hendon S)
Young, Sir George (Acton)


St. John Stevas, Rt Hon Norman
Thompson, Donald
Younger, Rt Hon George


Scott, Nicholas
Thorne, Neil (Ilford South)



Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)
Thornton, Malcolm
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Shelton, William (Streatham)
Townend, John (Bridlington)
Mr. Spencer Le Marchant and


Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)
Townsend, Cyril D. (Bexleyheath)
Lord James Douglas Hamilton.


Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge-Br'hills)






NOES


Abse, Leo
Davies, I for (Gower)
Hart, Rt Hon Dame Judith


Adams, Allen
Davis, Clinton (Hackney Central)
Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy


Allaun, Frank
Davis, Terry (B'rm'ham, Stechford)
Haynes, Frank


Alton, David
Deakins, Eric
Heffer, Eric S.


Anderson, Donald
Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)
Hogg, Norman (E Dunbartonshire)


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Dempsey, James
Holland, Stuart (L'beth, Vauxhall)


Armstrong, Rt Hon Ernest
Dewar, Donald
Home Robertson, John


Ashley, Rt Hon Jack
Dixon, Donald
Homewood, William


Ashton, Joe
Dobson, Frank
Hooley, Frank


Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)
Dormand, Jack
Horam, John


Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (Heywood)
Douglas, Dick
Howell, Rt Hon Denis (B'ham, Sm H)


Beith, A.. J.
Douglas-Mann, Bruce
Huckfield, Les


Benn, Rt Hon Anthony Wedgwood
Dubs, Alfred
Hughes, Mark (Durham)


Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)
Duffy, A. E. P.
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen North)


Bidwell, Sydney
Dunn, James A. (Liverpool, Kirkdale)
Hughes, Roy (Newport)


Booth, Rt Hon Albert
Eadie, Alex
Janner, Hon Greville


Boothroyd, Miss Betty
Eastham, Ken
Jay, Rt Hon Douglas


Bottomley, Rt Hon Arthur (M'brough)
Edwards, Robert (Wolv SE)
John, Brynmor


Bradley, Tom
Ellis, Raymond (NE Derbyshire)
Johnson, James (Hull West)


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Ellis, Tom (Wrexham)
Johnson, Walter (Derby South)


Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)
English, Michael
Johnston, Russell (Iverness)


Brown, Robert C. (Newcastle W)
Ennals, Rt Hon David
Jones, Barry (East Flint)


Brown, Ronald W. (Hackney S)
Evans, Ioan (Aberdare)
Jones, Dan (Burnley)


Brown, Ron (Edinburgh, Leith)
Evans, John (Newton)
Kaufman St Hon Gerald


Buchan, Norman
Ewing, Harry
Kerr, Russell


Callaghan, Jim (Middleton &amp; P)
Faulds, Andrew
Kilroy-Silk, Robert


Campbell, Ian
Field, Frank
Kinnock, Neil


Campbell-Savours, Dale
Fitch, Alan
Lambie, David


Canavan, Dennis
Flannery, Martin
Lamborn, Harry


Cant, R. B.
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Lamond James


Carmichael, Neil
Foot, Rt Hon Michael
Leadbitter, Ted


Carter-Jones, Lewis
Forrester, John
Leighton, Ronald


Cartwright, John
Foster, Derek
Lestor, Miss Joan (Eton &amp; slough)


Clark, Dr David (South Shields)
Foulkes, George
Lewis, Arthur (Newham North West)


Cocks, Rt Hon Michael (Bristol S)
Fraser, John (Lambeth, Norwood)
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)


Cohen, Stanley
Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald
Litherland, Robert


Coleman, Donald
Freud, Clement
Lofthouse, Geoffrey


Concannon, Rt Hon J. D.
Garrett, John (Norwich S)
Lyon, Alexander(York)


Conlan, Bernard
Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend)
Lyons, Edward (Bradford West)


Cook, Robin F.
George, Bruce
McCartney, Hugh


Cowans, Harry
Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John
McDonald, Dr Oonagh


Cox, Tom (Wandsworth, Tooting)
Ginsburg, David
McElhone, Frank


Craigen, J. M. (Glasgow, Maryhill)
Golding, John
McKay, Allen (Penistone)


Crowther, J. S.
Gourlay, Harry
McKelvey, William


Cryer, Bob
Graham, Ted
MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Grant, George (Morpeth)
Maclennan, Robert


Cunningham, George (Islington S)
Grant, John (Islington C)
McMahon, Andrew


Cunningham, Dr John (Whitehaven)
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, Central)


Davidson, Arthur
Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)
McNally, Thomas


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)
Harrison, Rt Hon Walter
McNamara, Kevin







McWilliam, John
Race, Reg
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton West)


Magee, Bryan
Richardson, Jo
Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)


Marks, Kenneth
Roberts, Allan (Bootle)
Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)


Marshall, David (Gl'sgow, Shettles'n)
Roberts, Ernest (Hackney North)
Thomas, Dr Roger (Carmarthen)


Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)
Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)
Thorne, Stan (Preston South)


Marshall, Jim (Leicester South)
Robertson, George
Tilley, John


Martin, Michael (Gl'gow, Springb'rn)
Robinson, Geoffrey (Coventry NW)
Torney, Tom


Maxton, John
Rodgers, Rt Hon William
Urwin, Rt Hon Tom


Maynard, Miss Joan
Rooker, J. W.
Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.


Mikardo, Ian
Roper, John
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)


Millan, Rt Hon Bruce
Ross, Ernest (Dundee West)
Wainwright, Richard (Colne Valley)


Miller, Or M. S. (East Kilbride)
Ross. Stephen (Isle ol Wight)
Walker, Rt Hon Harold (Doncaster)


Mitchell, R. C. (Soton, Itchen)
Rowlands, Ted
Weetch, Ken


Morris, Rt Hon Alfred (Wythenshawe)
Ryman, John
Wellbeloved, James


Morris, Rt Hon Charles (Openshaw)
Sandelson, Neville
Welsh, Michael


Morris, Rt Hon John (Aberavon)
Sever, John
White, Frank R. (Bury &amp; Radcliffe)


Moyle, Rt Hon Roland
Sheerman, Barry
White, James (Glasgow, Pollok)


Mulley, Rt Hon Frederick
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert (A'ton-u-L)
Whitehead, Phillip


Newens, Stanley
Short, Mrs Renée
Whitlock, William


Ogden, Eric
Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)
Wigley, Dafydd


O'Halloran, Michael
Silverman, Julius
Willey, Rt Hon Frederick


O'Neill, Martin
Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)


Orme, Rt Hon Stanley
Smith, Rt Hon J. (North Lanarkshire)
Wilson, William (Coventry SE)


Palmer, Arthur
Soley, Clive
Winnick, David


Park, George
Spearing, Nigel
Woodall, Alec


Parker, John
Spriggs, Leslie
Wrigglesworth, Ian


Parry, Robert
Stallard, A. W.
Wright, Sheila


Pavitt, Laurie
Stewart, Rt Hon Donald (W Isles)
Young, David (Bolton East)


Pendry, Tom
Stoddart, David



Penhaligon, David
Stott, Roger
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)
Strang, Gavin
Mr. George Morton and Mr. James Tinn.


Prescott, John
Straw, Jack



Price, Christopher (Lewisham West)
Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley

Question accordingly agreed to.

Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

New clause 2

NURSERY EDUCATION: SCOTLAND

'(1) An education authority shall have power to provide for their area school education in nursery school and nursery classes.

(2) The dusties of an education authority under section 1 of the Education (Scotland)

Act 1962 shall not apply in relation to the provision of school education in nursery school and nursery schools and nursery classes.

(3) This section applies to Scotland only.'.—[Mr. Younger.]

8 pm

Brought up, and read the First time.

Question put, that the clause be read a School time:—

The House divided: Ayes 295, Noes 246.

Division No. 171]
AYES
[8.07 pm


Adley, Robert
Bradford, Rev. R.
Cope, John


Aitken, Jonathan
Bright, Graham
Cormack, Patrick


Alexander, Richard
Brinton, Tim
Corrie, John


Amery, Rt Hon Julian
Brittan, Leon
Costain, A.. P.


Ancram, Michael
Brocklebank-Fowler, Christopher
Cranborne, Viscount


Arnold, Tom
Brooke, Hon Peter
Critchley, Julian


Aspinwall, Jack
Brotherton, Michael
Crouch, David


Atkins, Robert (Preston North)
Brown, Michael (Brigg &amp; Sc'thorpe)
Dean, Paul (North Somerset)


Atkinson, David (B'mouth, East)
Browne, John (Winchester)
Dickens, Geoffrey


Baker, Kenneth (St. Marylebone)
Bruce-Gardyne, John
Dorrell, Stephen


Baker, Nicholas (North Dorset)
Bryan, Sir Paul
Dover, Denshore


Banks, Robert
Buck, Antony
du Cann, Rt Hon Edward


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Budgen, Nick
Dunn, Robert (Dartford)


Bell, Sir Ronald
Bulmer, Esmond
Durant, Tony


Bendall, Vivian
Burden, F. A..
Dykes, Hugh


Benyon, Thomas (Abingdon)
Butcher, John
Eden, Rt Hon Sir John


Benyon, W. (Buckingham)
Butler, Hon Adam
Eggar, Timothy


Best, Keith
Cadbury, Jocelyn
Elliott, Sir William


Bevan, David Gilroy
Carlisle, John (Luton West)
Fairbairn, Nicholas


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Fairgrieve, Russell


Biggs-Davison, John
Carlisle, Rt Hon Mark (Runcorn)
Faith, Mrs Sheila


Blackburn, John
Chalker, Mrs Lynda
Farr, John


Blaker, Peter
Channon, Paul
Felt, Anthony


Body, Richard
Chapman, Sydney
Fenner, Mrs Peggy


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Clark, Hon Alan (Plymouth, Sutton)
Finsberg, Geoffrey


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Clerk, Sir William (Croydon South)
Fisher, Sir Nigel


Bottomley, Peter (Woolwich West)
Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Fletcher, Alexander (Edinburgh N)


Bowden, Andrew
Cockeram, Eric
Flelcher-Cooke, Charles


Boyson, Dr Rhodes
Colvin, Michael
Fookes, Miss Janet




Forman, Nigel
Macfarlane, Neil
Royle, Sir Anthony


Fowler, Rt Hon Norman
MacGregor, John
Sainsbury, Hon Timothy


Fox, Marcus
MacKay, John (Argyll)
St. John Stevas, Rt Hon Norman


Fraser, Peter (South Angus)
McNair-Wilson, Michael (Newbury)
Scott, Nicholas


Fry, Peter
McNair-Wilson, Patrick (New Forest)
Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)


Gardiner George (Reigate)
McQuarrie, Albert
Shelton, William (Streatham)


Gardner, Edward (South Fylde)
Madel, David
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Garel-Jones, Tristan
Major, John
Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge-Br'hills)


Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian
Marland, Paul
Shersby, Michael


Glyn, Dr Alan
Marlow, Tony
Silvester, Fred


Goodlad, Alastair
Marshall, Michael (Arundel)
Sims, Roger


Gorst, John
Marten, Neil (Banbury)
Skeet, T. H. H.


Gow, Ian
Mates, Michael
Smith, Dudley (War, and Leam'ton)


Gower, Sir Raymond
Maude, Rt Hon Angus
Speed, Keith


Grant, Anthony (Harrow C)
Mawhinney, Dr Brian
Speller, Tony


Gray, Hamish
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Spence, John


Greenway, Harry
Mellor, David
Spicer, Jim (West Dorset)


Grieve, Percy
Meyer, Sir Anthony
Spicer, Michael (S Worcestershire)


Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St Edmunds)
Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove &amp; Redditch)
Sproat, Iain


Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)
Mills, Iain (Meriden)
Squire, Robin


Grist, Ian
Mills, Peter (West Devon)
Stainton, Keith


Grylls, Michael
Miscampbell, Norman
Stanbrook, Ivor


Gummer, John Selwyn
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)
Stanley, John


Hamilton, Hon Archie (Eps'm&amp;Ew'll)
Moate, Roger
Steen, Anthony


Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Monro, Hector
Stevens, Martin


Hampson, D Keith
Montgomery, Fergus
Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)


Hannam, John
Moore, John
Stewart, John (East Renfrewshire)


Haselhurst, Alan
Morris, Michael (Northampton, Sth)
Stokes, John


Hawksley, Warren
Morrison, Hon Charles (Devizes)
Stradling Thomas, J.


Hayhoe, Barney
Morrison, Hon Peter (City of Chester)
Tapsell, Peter


Heddle, John
Mudd, David
Taylor, Robert (Croydon NW)


Henderson, Barry
Murphy, Christopher
Tebbit, Norman


Haseltine, Rt Hon Michael
Myles, David
Temple-Morris, Peter


Hicks, Robert
Neale, Gerrard
Thomas, Rt Hon Peter (Hendon S)


Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.
Needham, Richard
Thompson, Donald


Hill, James
Nelson, Anthony
Thorne, Neil (Ilford South)


Hogg, Hon Douglas (Grantham)
Neubert, Michael
Thornton, Malcolm


Holland, Philip (Carlton)
Newton, Tony
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Hordern, Peter
Onslow, Cranley
Townsend, Cyril D. (Bexleyheath)


Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)
Osborn, John
Trippier, David


Hunt, David (Wirral)
Page, John (Harrow, West)
Trotter, Neville


Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)
Page, Rt Hon R. Graham (Crosby)
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Hurd, Hon Douglas
Page, Richard (SW Hertfordshire)
Vaughan, Dr Gerard


Irvine, Charles (Cheltenham)
Parkinson, Cecil
Viggers, Peter


Jenkin, Rt Hon Patrick
Parris, Matthew
Waddington, David


Johnson Smith, Geoffrey
Patten, Christopher (Bath)
Wakeham, John


Jopling, Rt Hon Michael
Patten, John (Oxford)
Waldegrave, Hon William


Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith
Pattle, Geoffrey
Walker, Bill (Perth &amp; E Perthshire)


Kaberry, Sir Donald
Pawsey, James
Walker-Smith, Rt Hon Sir Derek


Kimball, Marcus
Percival, Sir Ian
Waller, Gary


King, Rt Hon Tom
Peyton, Rt Hon John
Walters, Dennis


Kitson, Sir Timothy
Pink, R. Bonner
Ward, John


Knight, Mrs Jill
Pollock, Alexander
Warren, Kenneth


Knox, David
Porter, George
Watson, John


Lamont, Norman
Powell, Rt Hon J. Enoch (S Down)
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Lang, Ian
Prentice, Rt Hon Reg
Wells, Bowen (Hert'rd &amp; Stev'nage)


Langford-Holt, Sir John
Price, David (Eastleigh)
Wheeler, John


Latham, Michael
Prior, Rt Hon James
Whitney, Raymond


Lawrence, Ivan
Proctor, K. Harvey
Wickenden, Keith


Lee, John
Raison, Timothy
Wiggin, Jerry


Le Marchant, Spencer
Rathbone, Tim
Wilkinson, John


Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark
Rees, Peter (Dover and Deal)
Williams, Delwyn (Montgomery)


Lester, Jim (Beeston)
Rees-Davies, W. R.
Winterton, Nicholas


Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Renton, Tim
Wolfson, Mark


Lloyd, Ian (Havant &amp; Waterloo)
Rhodes James, Robert
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)
Ridley, Hon Nicholas
Younger, Rt Hon George


Loveridge, John
Ridsdale, Jullan



Luce, Richard
Rifkind, Malcolm
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Lyell, Nicholas
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)
Lord James Douglas-Hamilton and


McCrindle, Robert
Rost, Peter
Mr Carol Mather


McCusker, H.






NOES


Abse, Leo
Benn, Rt Hon Anthony Wedgwood
Buchan, Norman


Adams, Allen
Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)
Callaghan, Jim (Middleton &amp; P)


Allaun, Frank
Bidwell, Sydney
Campbell, Ian


Alton, David
Booth, Rt Hon Albert
Campbell-Savours, Dale


Anderson, Donald
Boothroyd, Miss Betty
Canavan, Dennis


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Bottomley, Rt Hon Arthur (M'brough)
Cant, R. B.


Armstrong, Rt Hon Ernest
Bradley, Tom
Carmichael, Neil


Ashley, Rt Hon Jack
Bray, Dr Jeremy
Carter-Jones, Lewis


Ashton, Joe
Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)
Cartwright, John


Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)
Brown, Robert C. (Newcastle W)
Clark, Dr David (South Shields)


Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (Heywood)
Brown, Ronald W. (Hackney S)
Cocks, Rt Hon Michael (Bristol S)


Beith, A.. J.
Brown, Ron (Edinburgh, Leith)
Cohen, Stanley







Coleman, Donald
Hooley, Frank
Pendry, Tom


Concannon, Rt Hon J. D.
Horam, John
Penhaligon, David


Conlan, Bernard
Howell, Rt Hon Denis (B ham Sm H)
Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)


Cook, Robin F.
Huckfield, Les
Prescott, John


Cowans, Harry
Hughes, Mark (Durham)
Price, Christopher (Lewisham West)


Cox, Tom (Wandsworth, Tooting)
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen North)
Race, Reg


Craigen, J. M. (Glasgow, Maryhill)
Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Richardson, Jo


Crowther, J. S.
Janner, Hon Greville
Roberts, Allan (Bootle)


Cryer, Bob
Jay, Rt Hon Douglas
Roberts, Ernest (Hackney North)


Cunliffe, Lawrence
John, Brynmor
Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)


Cunningham, George (Islington S)
Johnson, James (Hull West)
Robertson, George


Cunningham, Dr John (Whitehaven)
Johnson, Walter (Derby South)
Robinson, Geoffrey (Coventry NW)


Dalyell, Tam
Johnston, Russell (Inverness)
Rodgers, Rt Hon William


Davidson, Arthur
Jones, Barry (East Flint)
Rooker, J. W.


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Roper, John


Davies, I for (Gower)
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Ross, Ernest (Dundee West)


Davis, Clinton (Hackney Central)
Kerr, Russell
Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)


Davis, Terry (B'rm'ham, Stechford)
Kilroy-Silk, Robert
Rowlands, Ted


Deakins, Eric
Kinnock, Neil
Ryman, John


Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)
Lambie, David
Sandelson, Neville


Dempsey, James
Lamborn, Harry
Sever, John


Dewar, Donald
Lamond, James
Sheerman, Barry


Dixon, Donald
Leadbitter, Ted
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert (A'ton-u-L)


Dobson, Frank
Leighton, Ronald
Short, Mrs Renée


Dormand, Jack
Lestor, Miss Joan (Eton &amp; Slough)
Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)


Douglas, Dick
Lewis, Arthur (Newham North West)
Silverman, Jullus


Douglas-Mann, Bruce
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)


Dubs, Alfred
Litherland, Robert
Smith, Rt Hon J. (North Lanarkshire)


Duffy, A.. E. P.
Lofthouse, Geoffrey
Soley, Clive


Dunn, James A.. (Liverpool, Kirkdale)
Lyon, Alexander (York)
Spearing, Nigel


Eadie, Alex
Lyons, Edward (Bradford West)
Spriggs, Leslie


Eastham, Ken
McDonald, Dr Oonagh
Stallard, A. W.


Edwards, Robert (Wolv SE)
McElhone, Frank
Stewart, Rt Hon Donald (W Isles)


Ellis, Raymond (NE Derbyshire)
McKay, Allen (Penistone)
Stoddart, David


Ellis, Tom (Wrexham)
McKelvey, William
Stott, Roger


English, Michael
MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor
Strang, Gavin


Ennals, Rt Hon David
Maclennan, Robert
Straw, Jack


Evans, Ioan (Aberdare)
McMahon, Andrew
Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley


Ewing, Harry
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, Central)
Tsylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton West)


Faulds Andrew
McNally, Thomas
Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)


Field, Frank
McNamara, Kevin
Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)


Fitch, Alan
McWilliam, John
Thomas, Dr Roger (Carmarthen)


Flannery, Martin
Magee, Bryan
Thorne, Stan (Preston South)


Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Marks, Kenneth
Tilley, John


Foot, Rt Hon Michael
Marshall, David (Gl'sgow, Shettles'n)
Tinn, James


Forrester, John
Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)
Torney, Tom


Foster, Derek
Marshall, Jim (Leicester South)
Urwin, Rt Hon Tom


Foulkes, George
Martin, Michael (Gl'gow, Springb'rn)
Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.


Fraser, John (Lambeth, Norwood)
Maxton, John
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)


Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald
Maynard, Miss Joan
Wainwright, Richard (Colne Valley)


Freud, Clement
Mikardo, Ian
Walker, Rt Hon Harold (Doncaster)


Garrett, John (Norwich S)
Millan, Rt Hon Bruce
Weetch, Ken


Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend)
Miller, Dr M. S. (East Kilbride)
Wellbeloved, James


George, Bruce
Mitchell, Austin (Grimsby)
Welsh, Michael


Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John
Mitchell, R. C. (Soton, Itchen)
White, Frank R. (Bury &amp; Radcliffe)


Ginsburg, David
Morris, Rt Hon Alfred (Wythenshawe)
White, James (Glasgow, Pollok)


Golding, John
Morris, Rt Hon Charles (Openshaw)
Whitehead, Phillip


Gourlay, Harry
Morris, Rt Hon John (Aberavon)
Whitlock, William


Graham, Ted
Morton, George
Wigley, Dafydd


Grant, George (Morpeth)
Moyle, Rt Hon Roland
Willey, Rt Hon Frederick


Grant, John (Islington C)
Mulley, Rt Hon Frederick
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)


Hamilton James (Bothwell)
Newens, Stanley
Wilson, William (Coventry SE)


Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)
Ogden, Eric
Winnick, David


Harrison Rt Hon Walter
O'Halloran, Michael
Woodall, Alec


Hart, Rt Hon Dame Judith
O'Neill, Martin
Wrigglesworth, Ian


Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley
Wright, Sheila


Haynes, Frank
Palmer, Arthur
Young, David (Bolton East)


Heffer, Eric S.
Park, George



Hogg, Norman (E Dunbartonshire)
Parker, John
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Holland, Stuart (L'beth, Vauxhall)
Parry, Robert
Mr Hugh McCartney and


Home Robertson, John
Pavitt, Laurie
Mr John Evans


Homowood, William

Question accordingly agreed to.


New clause read a second time, and added to the Bill.

New clause 3

SCHOOL AND FURTHER EDUCATION REGULATIONS

'(1) The Secretary of State may by regulations make provision—

(a) for requiring teachers at schools and further education establishments to which this section applies to possess such qualifications as may be determined by or under the regulations and for requiring such teachers to serve probationary periods;
(b) with respect to the teaching staff to be provided in such schools and establishments;
(c) for requiring the approval of the Secretary of State to be obtained for the use in such schools and establishments of such materials or apparatus as may be specified in the regulations, being materials or apparatus which could or might involve a serious risk to health;
(d) with respect to the keeping, disclosure and transfer of educational records about pupils at such schools and establishments;
(e) with respect to the duration of the school day and school year at, and the granting of leave of absence from, any such schools.

(2) The Secretary of State may by regulations make provision for imposing requirements as to the health and physical capacity of—

(a) teachers at schools and further education establishments to which this section applies;
(b) teachers employed by local education authorities otherwise than at such schools or establishments; and
(c) persons employed by local education authorities in work otherwise than as teachers which brings them regularly into contact with persons who have not attained the age of nineteen years.

(3) The Secretary of State may by regulations make provision for prohibiting or restricting the employment or further employment of persons—
(a) as teachers at schools and further education establishments to which this section applies;
(b) by local education authorities as teachers otherwise than at such schools or establishments; or
(c) by local education authorities in such work as is mentioned in subsection (2)(c) above,
on medical grounds, in cases of misconduct and, as respects employment or further employment as a teacher, on educational grounds.

(4) The Secretary of State may by regulations make provision requiring his approval to be obtained for the provision of new premises for, or the alteration of the premises of, any school or further education establishment to which this section applies or any boarding hostel provided by a local education authority for pupils attending any such school

or establishment and for the inspection of any such hostel.

(5) In section 71(a) of the Public Health Act 1936 and section 63(2) of the Education Act 1944 (exemption from building regulations etc.)references to plans approved by the Secretary of State shall include references to any particulars submitted to and approved by him under regulations made by virtue of subsection (4) above.

(6) The Secretary of State may make regulations with respect to the provision of, and the fees to be charged for, courses of further education at further education establishments to which this section applies, including provision for requiring his approval to be obtained for the provision at such establishments of courses designated by or under the regulations as courses of advanced further education and for enabling him to give directions for the discontinuance of any such course at such an establishment or as to the number and categories of students to be admitted to such courses at such establishments.

(7) This section applies to any school maintained by a local education authority, any special school not so maintained, any further education establishment provided by a local education authority and any further education establishment designated by or under the regulations as an establishment substantially dependent for its maintenance on assistance from local education authorities or on grants under section 100(1)(b) of the said Act of 1944.'.—[Mr. Mark Carlisle.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Mark Carlisle: I beg to move, that the clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this we are to lake the following: New clause 13—Records—and Government amendments Nos. 68, 70, 71 and 79.

Mr. Christopher Price: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Owing to the operation of the guillotine, we now have only 10 minutes in which to consider a new clause which was not debated in Committee, and which has massive implications and constitutional precedents. In those circumstances it should not be introduced in this manner in the House of Commons. In the past it has been proper, in this sort of case, for the measure to be introduced anew in another place. Since teachers, institutions or any of the bodies which are normally consulted have not been consulted on the new clause, has there been a request that it might be fully withdrawn from this place, and properly introduced in another place, where it could be considered anew, rather


than as a matter which had been improperly considered by this House?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I have not received a request, and I am bound by the resolution which was passed by the House earlier this afternoon. I have no powers to bury that.

Mr. Mark Carlisle: I say to the hon. Member for Lewisham, West (Mr. Price) that, whereas I appreciate that at first sight the clause may appear to be formidable, in practice it is not. It is designed merely to provide a statutory basis for the range of powers that I am currently required to exercise by means of subordinate legislation. I assure the hon. Gentleman that we shall consult the various bodies as to what should be the course of those regulations. The new clause simply lays the basis for them.

Mr. Christopher Price: Will the right hon. Gentleman undertake to consult before the Second Reading in the House of Lords?

Mr. Mark Carlisle: I cannot promise that, because I do not know if there will be time to do so. However, I assure the hon. Gentleman that we shall consult before we lay the regulations.
There is nothing new in the clause. The existing regulations cover school regulations, further education regulations and the handicapped people's boarding regulations. Regulations of this kind have been in force since the immediate post-war period. They cover such important matters as the qualification of teachers, the probationary training of teachers, the length of the school day and the school year, and the power to take action against teachers on the grounds of their unsuitability due to misconduct. They deal with the use of radioactive materials in schools and colleges, and with the approval of further education courses for the purpose of pooling in polytechnics. These regulations have been made in the past under section 5(2) of the Local Government Act 1974, or its predecessor, which gave a general power enabling the appropriate Minister to make regulations prescribing attendance and general requirements in relation to any function of a local authority. That was an extremely wide power. That provision, along with others, is to be repealed by the

Local Government, Planning and Land (No. 2) Bill, which has been read a Second time in the House and is now being discussed in Committee.
It is therefore necessary to reimplement the existing enabling provisions. The correct place to do so, in so far as the measures relate to education, is in the Bill. In attempting to do that I have set out in detail the sort of matters which the regulations will cover in future. I have decided not to use the wide powers, but to use the more detailed provision which prescribes my powers more strictly, and which has the net effect of reducing the number of regulations by about one-third.
My intention, as I have said, is that the clause will impose no extra financial or manpower burdens on local authorities, and it is my intention to consult the local authority associations and the main teachers' associations on the content of the regulations to be made under the power.
I think that it would be more helpful and convenient to the House if, rather than seeking to explain what the various clauses say, I sit down now in case any hon. Member wishes to intervene briefly.

Mr. Kinnock: The right hon. and learned Gentleman showed an absolute mastery of euphemism in the way that he managed to cover, in a very short time, the reasons for putting the new clause before us.
The fact is that the Secretary of State for the Environment made such an absolute hash of his Local Government, Planning and Land (No. 2) Bill that the Department of Education and Science—the poor benighted, put-upon DES—has been forced to introduce this important new clause, covering as it does a mass of matters of interest and importance in the provision, administration and management of education, at a guillotined Report stage, when I am sure that the DES would have liked to do it at some other time.
However, this, together with the new proposals that the Secretary of State has at a later stage on transport, and the debate that we have just had on the important new clause on nursery education, led me to believe, when I saw these things last week, that we did not have an Order


Paper so much as an Education (No. 3) Bill. I am sure that we could have usefully employed our time on another Committee stage in giving effective scrutiny and providing amendment even to these apparently urbane and unexceptional regulations.
The fact is that, as the right hon. and learned Gentleman says, the regulations cover the qualifications and probationary requirements, the use of materials, some of them novel, and the very sensitive matter of school records, as well as the duration of the school day and the school year, the health and physical capacity, and indeed the morality, of teachers and of others who may work in schools. Without having to elongate these considerations or the deliberations on the Bill, those in the other place will want to give attention to these matters for the purposes of elucidation.
I am grateful to the right hon. and learned Gentleman for the undertaking that he gave about consultation. I understand that some preliminary discussion has already started about those matters. I hope that the clause, when introduced, will not suffer because of the unfortunate fact that the Secretary of State for the Environment has effectively deprived the House of giving proper consideration to these matters.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: I had hoped to hear from the Government that they were able to accept new clause 13, which deals with school records. For a long time I have been pressing that parents should have the right of access to the records kept on their children. That would be a very useful measure. However, I realise that there are some difficulties for the Government, so I very much welcome that at least in their new clause, in paragraph (1)(d), they appear to be taking new powers so that they may in the future be able to make regulations enabling parents to have the right of access to their children's records. I very much welcome that the Government are at least taking the powers to do that, although I appreciate that I and other people concerned about this will have to continue to lobby to make sure that, having taken the power to make the regulations, the Minister makes them.
Just as I am concerned that parents ought to have the right to see their child-

ren's records, so there is a lot of concern among teachers about their rights to see the records that are kept. Those two measures, giving a right to see what records are kept, could usefully be introduced. I hope that the Minister will at least have the matter considered in the other place and see whether it is possible to extend the powers relating to the keeping of records to cover not only pupils but teachers. Everyone has the feeling that there should not be some secret record which may or may not be accurate.
Therefore, while I am a little disappointed, although not surprised, that the Minister cannot accept new clause 13, I very much welcome that in the clause he has included paragraph (1) (d), which goes a little further than the powers that he has taken in the past.

Mr. Christopher Price: In the dying guillotine seconds it is proper to make the point that although the Secretary of State takes powers over county and voluntary schools, it is an absolute scandal that under the clause he does not take powers over those assisted places schools on which he is about to spend £55 million of public money.
It being half-past Eight o'clock, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER proceeded, pursuant to the Order [29 January] and the resolution this day, to put forthwith the Question already proposed from the Chair.

Question, That the clause be read a Second time, put and agreed to.

Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

Clause 2

REQUIREMENTS AS TO GOVERNING BODIES

Mr. John Hannam: I beg to move amendment No. 116, in page 2, line 11, after 'authority', insert
'or for a non-maintained school, namely a school which receives grants under the Special Schools and Establishments (Grant) Regulations 1959'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take the following amendments:

No. 119, in page 2, line 13, after 'school', insert 'or non-maintained school.'

No. 117, in page 2, line 15, at end insert—
'(2A) The governing body of every such school as is mentioned in subsection (1) above shall include governors appointed by the local education authority by whom it is maintained, or in whose area it is situated.'.

No. 118, in page 2, line 20, after 'school' insert 'or non-maintained school'.

No. 120, in page 2, line 40, after 'authority', insert 'or non-maintained school'.

No. 121, in page 3, line 16, after 'school', insert 'or non-maintained school'.

No. 122, in clause 5, page 6, line 4, after 'school', insert 'or non-maintained school'.

Mr. Hannam: All these amendments, in the names of members of the all-party disablement group, relate to an important sector of the special educational system for handicapped children. The amendments have no financial implications. We are seeking to include this sort of special school—the non-maintained school—in clauses 2 and 5, which deal with appointments to governing bodies.
In case there are hon. Members who do not have such non-maintained schools in their constituencies, namely, schools for the deaf, blind and handicapped children, I shall give some brief details. The non-maintained special schools are non-profit-making concerns that may receive grants from central Government funds towards capital projects in return for meeting a number of conditions that are laid down in the handicapped pupils and special schools regulations of 1959.
The running costs of the majority of these schools are met almost entirely by fees paid by local education authorities. There are 112 non-maintained schools in England and Wales. They cater for 82 per cent. of all blind children, 45 per cent. of all deaf children, and 32 per cent. of all handicapped children attending residential special schools.
I cannot speak too highly of the service and the dedication given by the schools and the voluntary workers and governors who serve them. The non-maintained special schools play an important part in the provision of special

education, and are unlike independent special schools in that they are almost entirely dependent upon public funds.
It is that which makes them, in the words of the Warnock report
part of the national system of educational provision in a way that independent schools are not.
Yet, as the law stands, non-maintained special schools are virtually autonomous, and may select their governing bodies subject to their trust deeds under the 1959 regulations.
A number of the schools have no parent governors. Under present regulations, teachers are not allowed to be governors. Some, but not all, have local authority representatives as governors.
Many parents of handicapped children have made representations to Members of Parliament about the lack of involvement in governing bodies. It is true to say that they look to the Bill to bring them more in line with the parents of non-handicapped children.
Only on Sunday the mother of two severely deaf children, Mrs. Winifred Tumim—who served on the Warnock committee and has worked ceaselessly on behalf of the deaf children and the special schools—telephoned me to implore that Parliament should try to ensure that the Bill is amended to provide for the same parental rights as are being granted to those whose children attend county, voluntary or maintained schools.
If the provisions of the Bill become law, the non-maintained schools will become further isolated from the educational mainstream. We, in the House, would be in danger of failing to reflect the public interest.
It is essential that the governing bodies of these schools should be brought into line with those of comparable schools in the maintained sector, if those schools are to become more fully integrated into the special education system as a whole. These amendments would ensure that these schools, financed mainly by local education authorities and Government grants, have parent, teacher and local authority representation on their governing bodies.
The Bill envisages a new partnership for the parents of other handicapped children. It would be particularly sad


if the parents of children who go to non-maintained schools were excluded, especially as such parents seldom have any alternative to the particular school for the deaf, blind or handicapped in their own areas. There is no group of parents which takes a greater interest or involvement in their children's education, as we all know from personal experience in our constituencies. It seems silly to exclude such dedicated parents from the much welcomed increased involvement given in the Bill, but I am afraid that that is the case.
Ironically, the Bill as it stands creates second-class citizens to the detriment of parents. A small but important section of the public education system would continue to operate a system within a system, which would make it very difficult to achieve the aim of section 10 of the 1976 Act and the integrated system of special education which that section calls for.
Since the Warnock committee reported in 1978, we have been awaiting Government action. I hope that our waiting will soon be over. I have a great admiration for the special schools in my own constituency, and I know that they have experienced great anxiety about section 10. However, unless we amend the Bill tonight, or in the other place, we shall be only widening the gap.

Mr. Lewis Carter-Jones: I am present once again to cross swords with the Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science. Let me assure him that the implementation of the amendments would not cost the Government a penny. That should be attractive for a start. No public expenditure is involved.
If the amendments are accepted, there might be better government in special schools. The schools will be able to get grass roots opinion. It is unfair to isolate the handicapped child and the parents of a handicapped child. The parents of such children have a vital role to play, not only in caring for their children but also in advising and helping them on the problems that they face as well as in educating those children.
The fact that up to the present such parents have no representation as of right is a disgrace to our education system. I have no doubt that the Minister—my

friend outside the Chamber—will think deeply and carefully about this matter, and I hope that he will not give long-term promises. The time to act is now. These are reasonable, reasoned amendments which would give the handicapped child and the parents of such children a much more vital role to play in their education.

Mr. David Price: As the House will recognise this is the most formidable of parliamentary lobbies—the all-party disablement group—and I should like to support the amendments.
The first question which may be asked by hon. Members who do not follow these things as closely as others of us do is why we are concerned about non-maintained special schools in a Bill which on the whole deals with the public sector of education. The reason was given by my hon Friend the Member for Exeter (Mr. Hannam). These non-maintained private schools are all private trust, charitable organizations, and although they get income from their various trusts and charities, the education of almost all the children who attend those schools is paid for by their respective education authorities. Therefore, from the financial point of view this is public sector education.
My hon. Friend quoted appropriately from the Warnock report, which said that such schools were part of the national system of education provision in a way that independent schools were not.
Some members of the Opposition may ask why they should be concerned about independent schools. The schools are not, in the classical sense, independent. They are part of the total system—the national system—of dealing with handicapped children.

Mr. Christopher Price: It is important to emphasise, even with my namesake, that there is all-party unanimity on this point. The local authority maintained schools could not possibly cope with the needs for special education within their own establishments. It is an absolute all-party point that the independent schools in this sector are to all intents and purposes part of the maintained system as they are necessary for local authorities to carry out their duties to special education under the 1944 Act.

Mr. David Price: That is right. It is necessary to remind ourselves of the contribution made by these schools to the difficult problem of handicapped children. One type of handicap requires different education from another type.
The Warnock report says:
Further, non-maintained special schools in England and Wales catered for 32 per cent. of all handicapped pupils attending residential special schools in 1977 and grant-aided residential special schools in Scotland catered for the same proportion (32 per cent.) in 1976. More specifically,"—
this is the key point
they made provision for 82 per cent. of the blind (94 per cent. in Scotland), 72 per cent. of the deaf (49 per cent. in Scotland), 49 per cent. of the physically handicapped (80 per cent. in Scotland) and 23 per cent. of the maladjusted (38 per cent. in Scotland) who were in residential special schools.
That is the scale of what we are talking about. This is no little periphery of independent education. This is mainstream education for these children. Therefore, I ask my hon. Friend to give a sympathetic hearing to the cause that we are now pleading on an all-party basis. The Warnock report criticised the fact that many of these schools appeared to be unsupervised by the Government compared with the mainstream of public education in this country.
It goes on:
Further, authorities are not always represented on the governing bodies of schools in their area.
We are now dealing with the question of our schools in the public sector. The report makes a series of recommendations. That which is germane to this debate is this:
we recommend that every non-maintained special school should have its own governing body and that this should include at least one representative of the local education authority in whose area it is situated, or of one of the authorities making particular use of it.
When we come to the amendments to clause 9 I shall deploy, I hope, an even more formidable argument. I put to my hon. Friend, with his vast experience in the practical running of schools, our exact point. All hon. Members who are concerned with the handicapped child agree with the desire of Mrs. Warnock and her colleagues to integrate the handicapped child into the generality of normal schooling as far as we can, must nevertheless acknowledge that there are those who are

so handicapped, or whose disability is so special, that they require a special form of schooling and education. This is where the House will recognise that it is the non-maintained school, above all, that can cater for the need. Our case rests on those figures.

Mr. Beith: This is an all-party attempt to persuade the Government that special schools should not be excluded from the provisions of the Bill. There is deep concern that we should not put through the House a major piece of legislation, which will rest on the statute book for some time, without ensuring that where ever possible we have given those in special schools the benefit of its more favourable provisions.
It is not enough to sit around waiting for Warnock. We all know the problems that will be encountered as we try to get the main recommendations of that report implemented. Governments take longer to consider them than most of us think necessary. They consult further and say that the parliamentary timetable is so crowded that they cannot get their proposals through in the current Session, and there is inevitable delay. During all that time schools are denied the benefits of whatever could have been provided under this legislation. I refer to membership of governing bodies of schools serving the needs of handicapped children. Many of these schools are privately run, although the vast majority of their pupils are educated at public expense.
No school which caters for handicapped children and has had parent governors has ever had cause to regret the experience. Quite the contrary. I speak from experience as a governor of a special school in the maintained sector. In my experience, parent governors have a contribution to make which is far in excess of that of other governors. They speak from experience of the hard toil of looking after a severely handicapped child and with the dedication and enthusiasm to be found only among those who have brought up handicapped children. They have taken the lead in bringing together other parents in voluntary efforts in support of the school. It is they who have been most ready to take all the children out on trips. Their contribution is one


which no one else can make. Schools have been slow to recognise it. As in every other sphere where we think it right to lay down that there should be parent governors of schools we should do it in this sphere where their contribution is so great.

Mr. Jack Ashley: The hon. Member for Exeter (Mr. Hannam) has put the case that it is daft to exclude non-maintained schools from this provision, and there is no point in making long speeches about it. I presume that it is a ministerial oversight, because I can see no reason for excluding non-maintained schools. We expect the Minister not to prevaricate, but to say that he will take action. Much of the Bill is highly controversial, but this provision is not, and I hope that the Minister will accept the amendment.

The Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science (Dr. Rhodes Boyson): I appreciate that the amendment is non-party political, because two Tories, two Labour Members and one Liberal Member have spoken in favour of it. When the 1976 Education Bill was going through the House, I remember the work done on clause 10 by my hon. Friend the Member for Exeter (Mr. Hannam). The hon. Member for Eccles (Mr. Carter-Jones) is renowned in his constituency, and in the country, for the work he does for the handicapped. In Committee the hon. Member for Berwick-on-Tweed (Mr. Beith) paid special attention to the handicapped. I do not need to refer to the knowledge of the Warnock committee's report possessed by my hon. Friend the Member for Eastleigh (Mr. Price) and the great work for the handicapped that has been done by the right hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ashley).
I appreciate the genuine concern of parents of handicapped children who wish to see their children have the same rights as children attending schools in the maintained sector, including maintained special schools. The Bill includes maintained special schools but the question of non-maintained special schools has been raised this evening. It has been made clear by hon. Members over the last few days—I am sure we appreciated it previously—that in most cases parents of handicapped children will be even more

concerned than ordinary parents because they wish to ensure that their children are given the fullest opportunity in life that is possible.
There is no question of a difference of principle here. We should ensure that handicapped children attending schools inside or outside the maintained sector are given equal opportunity, bearing in mind that a great deal of State money maintains them.
There are two or three problems that I should like to bring to the notice of the House. The first is the catchment area. My hon. Friend the Member for Exeter gave the percentage of blind and other handicapped people who attend non-maintained special schools. But one problem with the election of parent governors of non-maintained special schools is that, unlike maintained special schools, the governors often serve not just a local or regional need but a national need. The method of election enshrined in the Bill would seem to be inappropriate if elections have to be made on a national basis.

Mr. Christopher Price: Is not the hon. Gentleman aware that the parent governors of a school are such whether they represent a national interest or a local one? It is possible to bring parents together in one way or another. Is the hon. Gentleman saying that this specific difficulty will break the principle which he has already conceded?

Dr. Boyson: I take the point. There are special problems. Parents can elect other parents only when they know them and presumably, if it is not a postal ballot, it can be done at the same place. I am not saying that this difficulty cannot be overcome but it is different from the election of governors of schools where people come from a particular area or a small locality.

Mr. Carter-Jones: That problem will remain whether we talk about it now, next year, or in 10 years' time. I wish that the Minister would net give us that wiffle-waffle from the Dispatch Box. That is padding. He knows full well that there are better reasons. What the hon. Gentleman is saying is waffle.

Dr. Boyson: As the hon. Member for Lewisham, West (Mr. Price) said, I con-


ceded the principle. But the question is whether the right place for the election of parent governors for non-maintained special schools is in the Bill or elsewhere. That is the only argument. I accept the principle completely. Those parents must have the same rights. I make it perfectly clear that the battle is not about the principle. I do not doubt that those putting this matter forward are motivated by total concern.

Mr. Spearing: Is it not also an equal difficulty in maintained schools that are boarding schools? That would be a difficulty under the Bill as it stands. Why not adopt those methods in respect of special schools?

Dr. Boyson: The number of boarding schools within the State sector is not large. We shall be interested to see the methods those boarding schools adopt to elect a parent body. Presumably we will learn something from that. However, this is a problem that must be overcome one way or another.

Mr. David Price: We can obtain a little help from the private sector because in independent boarding schools there is no difficulty in producing parent governing bodies, particularly in the non-maintained special schools. These are active, concerned parents. It is only a matter of adding a little technical democracy to what is already happening.

Dr. Boyson: I turn to the second paragraph of my brief. Before doing so I shall give way to any hon. Member in the Chamber who has not yet expressed his opinion on this matter.
Clause 2 relates to the terms of the instruments of government that are unique to maintained schools. We do not believe that we can achieve what the proponents of the amendment want by amending the clause. The House may wish to enforce statutory provision for the appointment of parents and teachers—I presume that that is what it would want the Government to do on the bodies responsible for non-maintained schools. Hon. Members will be familiar with the list. I asked for it today. It includes many charities—for example, the Royal National Institute for the Blind with 11 schools through to Dr Barnado's with six, to quite a few with one.
If the House wants to enforce a statutory provision for the appointment of parents and teachers, it will be necessary to deal with complex trust deeds based upon voluntary foundations. That is different from that which is being dealt with in the Bill. I am not saying that it cannot be done, but I repeat that the voluntary foundations have complex trust deeds. Action will have to be taken if we are to achieve what some hon. Members say the House wants. I am not doubting that it needs to be achieved.
It is strange that many voluntary bodies, or voluntary charities, have not moved to the election or some form of appointment of parent and teacher governors. Presumably some of them have done so.

Mr. Carter-Jones: The Minister has pin-pointed one of the problems that has concerned the all-party disablement group for some years. It is endemic in his Department. It has taken us years to make society accept that the handicapped have a full place in society. The fact that they are not included is a measure of the problem.

Dr. Boyson: I take the hon. Gentleman's point. The Warnock report deals in part with integration within our society. There is the approach of integrating if there is any possible means of so doing instead of starting on the other side. As I understand the Warnock report—many hon. Members who are now in the Chamber understand it very much better than I do—it contains a total switch of emphasis. That was welcomed by the House. I accept it myself and I am sure that the Government do so as well.

Mr. Alfred Morris: Is the Minister saying that he accepts the recommendations of the Warnock report? Is that what he said?

Dr. Boyson: I was dealing with the principle involved in the Warnock report. I was not dealing with its recommendations, which are numerous. I was answering the hon. Member for Eccles. The hon. Gentleman said that there had been a fight for integration and acceptance instead of division. I said that the Warnock report was involved with that—namely, integration within our


society. I was not taking on board all the recommendations of the report.

Mr. Carter-Jones: Special schools have not yet received the message that parents ought to be among their governors. That is why such provision does not yet appear in the articles.

Dr. Boyson: If any special schools receive copies of the report of the debate, the message might percolate through. I do not think that anyone is fighting the principle. It is merely a matter of how one does it and where one does it.
We have not yet dealt with the special conditions of the trust deeds. Basically the Bill is intended for the maintained sector. Clause 2 is concerned with how to elect governors in the State sector. Following the Warnock report there are many problems that will have to be considered—for example, the integration of the handicapped within our society.
I have been asked whether the Government are to make a long-term promise. I hope to make a short-term promise. We intend to do something, though not in the long term. It is two years since the Warnock committee reported and we shall look at that report and see what we can achieve despite current controls on resources.
9 pm
The Government, while not opposing the principle of these amendments, believe that they should be dealt with in the setting of a full consideration of the Warnock report which deals with the integration into society of non-maintained schools. Under that system parents and teachers would be involved. We do not oppose the principle. However, we do not believe that this Bill is the right vehicle for the amendment. Clause 2 deals with the issue properly and the matter will require close and special study.

Mr. Hannam: We understand the complexity of the law governing charitable bodies. My hon. Friend said that the Warnock report would come before us in the short term rather than in the long term. Is he able to give a clearer indication of when the Government are likely to be dealing with Warnock since that will affect our attitude to these amendments?

Dr. Boyson: I had intended to deal with that matter later. Charities are a

complicated issue and there has been a long-standing arrangement in the House that in many cases neither the Government nor the Opposition have interfered with charities. They need to be looked at most carefully in order that they should not be undermined. As a trailer for clause 9 which we shall hurry on to without need of a guillotine, I was going to say that I realise the understandably deep feelings of many hon. Members on this matter and that my right hon. and learned Friend expects to make an announcement before Easter on the Government's response to the Warnock report. This is not a political point, but the Government feel that this issue should not be catered for in clause 2 but should be part of a total consideration of the problem.

Mr. Hannam: The Minister has been batting on a sticky wicket and he lost two of his wickets before he was able to sustain his third argument. We acknowledge that he has accepted the principle of the arguments we put forward in these amendments. His statement about Warnock is of great significance and it was important that we heard of it at this stage rather than be left in doubt.
I understand the complexities of charitable trusts and the way in which they administer non-maintained schools. I hope that my hon. Friend will take account of the points made on both sides of the House and that an even fuller explanation of the Government's position will be presented when the Bill is debated in the other place. I am sure the issues will be raised even more vehemently by their Lordships.
In view of the explanation given by the Minister and the assurance about the implementation and introduction of Warnock by the Government, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Beith: I beg to move amendment No. 1, in page 2, line 34, delete 'two' and insert 'three'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Richard Crawshaw): With this we are to take amendment No. 2, in page 3, line 4, leave out 'two' and insert 'three'.

Mr. Beith: For those who have not compared the Amendment Paper with the Bill, I should explain that this amend-


ment is about parent governors and teacher governors. The main amendment is about parent governors, and amendment No. 2 deals with teacher governors. I tabled these two amendments to draw attention to the fact that the Government have moved far from the principles of the Taylor report. That report set out the basis for the representation of parents and teachers on the governing bodies of schools.
Perhaps the most powerful underlying pressure for the reform of school government has come as a result of bitter experience in various kinds of authorities. That pressure has come particularly in authorities where political considerations have loomed far too large in the selection of governors and where those authorities have believed such considerations to be essential to sustain a political majority—usually of councillors—on every school governing body. That applies to the extent of turning out effective governors, depriving them of their position on bodies of governors, when there is a change in political complexion in the town or county hall. We have seen examples of that in Kent and of the long term stranglehold of one party on governing bodies in County Durham.
There has been a perversion of the purpose and nature of school governing bodies. They have been lowered in public respect at a time when we should be trying to enhance their status and the job that they do. Even in authorities which have not followed the party political tradition, and have not perverted the purposes of school governors by packing them with political nominees, the real value of such bodies has not been used because they have remained remote from the world of the school.
When I first became a governor of a secondary school, not one member of that body had either been to a secondary modern school or had sent, or contemplated sending, a child of his to a secondary modern school. Virtually all of them had had no part in the State education system. They were well-intentioned people who by their lights, were playing a useful role in the community, and it was part of their social status to become a member of a school governing body. The result was that, with the best will in the world, the governing

body was miles away from the realities of life in the school and the concerns and expectations of the parents. The discussions of that and many other governing bodies reflected that fact.
Governors have often failed to get to grips with the issues that should be concerning them, not least because they are so far from the concerns of parents and teachers. I am not sure that there would have been the need for this great debate on education—limited though its outcome has been so far—if there had been more effective school governing bodies. If on every governing body there were three or four parents pointing out that they had children coming out of the school who were unable to read properly or to do simple calculations, we should not have needed the apparatus of papers and inspectors from the DES to bring home that point.
A governing body that was made up effectively of the parents and teaching staff of the school could have played a larger role without jeopardising the professional independence of teachers. That was the spirit in which the Taylor committee was born. Evidence was drawn from a variety of bodies, including the Liberal Party, arguing for major change in the composition of the bodies. Such change would have swept away the idea of a local authority majority body and brought in a partnership between the community, parents and teachers. Although the recommendation of the Taylor committee on partnerships differed from the one that we proposed, none the less we were prepared to commend and encourage its recommendations. The report said:
As a matter of principle, membership of governing bodies should consist of equal numbers of local education authority representatives, school staff, parents with, where appropriate, pupils and representatives of the local community—an equal partnership between those who are most concerned with the education system.
That idea gained some ground and found favour among Conservative Members who were in opposition at the time. That was one of many causes which they were happy to take up when they were in opposition. Let me remind them that in Committee they became firmly committed to the idea that parents should not only account for one or two members of the governing body—two, as it has


emerged in the Bill—but should have a substantial place on the body.
The Leader of the House, the then Shadow Education. Minister, said:
I do not think that one parent governor should be isolated among officials, education experts, from which may heaven deliver us, and teachers…One parent alone faced with such fierce competition cannot be an effective influence. The question of numbers, proportion and percentage is of vital importance."—[Official Report, 1 July 1976; Vol. 914, c. 732.]
I entirely agree with that, and that is why I believe that it is insufficient to raise the minimum from one to two. The Bill presents us with two parent governors and one or two teacher governors. I do not believe that to be sufficient. I do not believe that two parents can be immune from the difficulties, problems and isolation to which the former Education Minister attached such importance when he was in opposition.
The Government have hopelessly watered down the excellent principles established by the Taylor report. They have left a situation which retains all the evils of the worst authorities. If any expectations have been generated by the Bill, they are misplaced. Any local authority that wishes to retain the idea of political domination over a governing body, may do so. It will have a majority at its disposal.
Any governing body that wishes to retain parent or teacher representation at a minimum or token level will be able to do so quite easily. Authorities vary widely. Several authorities are way ahead of the Bill. Many of them already carry out the Bill's suggestions. A few are not even prepared to have one or two parents, or one or two teachers, on the governing body.
Any legislation must establish a firmer basis so that parents can insist on fairer representation. Teachers and staff should be able to use that basis to gain representation on governing bodies. The Bill will leave the worst authorities—those that are determined to use governing bodies as a device for political patronage—virtually unrestricted. That was not the motive behind the Taylor report. Nor was it the motive behind the demand for legislation on school governing bodies. I cannot understand why the Government are prepared to include such provisions if they do not care about reforming

school government. They should make effective provisions, rather than token provisions such as these.

Mr. Greenway: I have had considerable experience of serving on school governing bodies that have incorporated parent and teacher governors. It is valuable to have such governors. Parents are consumers, and therefore they represent the consumer angle. That is extremely important. Teachers are deeply involved with the school and with achieving quality. They will attempt to put across the aspirations of the school's teaching force to other governors. Their views will balance those of parents and pupils.
I believe that there should be a limit on the number of parent and teacher governors. There should be a balance between teacher governors and parent governors. That is fair. Parents will generally take a greater interest in the school if they are allowed some representation on the governing body. Parent governors will discuss with parents the work of the governing body. That is valuable. Naturally, they do not pass on the confidential business of the governing body. It would be wrong if they did. However, they can do much by explaining to other parents the purpose of the governing body. They can also put forward the wishes, thoughts, aspirations and worries of parents.
It is a two-way process, which is what education is about at almost every level. It should be two-way between teachers and pupils, teachers and parents, and so on. That typifies the process of education. In a philosophical sense, the concept of parent-governors is fulfilling that aspect of education.
9.15 pm
Parents gain a wholly new perspective of what a school is about when they have representatives on the governing body. They no longer receive information only from their children or in formal interviews with teachers. They have a new and deeply valuable involvement.
I do not see a need to push that representation beyond two. I worked in a large school of over 2,000 pupils, and we had only two parents on the governing body. I sometimes thought that we could do with more, but in a governing body of about 20 those two made a positive and reasonable contribution when


they had strong feelings. With two representatives, one can always support the other and, where necessary, second a motion.
The same applies to teachers. In welcoming parents on governing bodies in the strength laid down in the Bill, I also welcome teachers. It is of great importance to maintain a balance. The consumer—parent—should not move ahead of the teacher aspect of education.
The two teacher representatives can support each other in meetings and report back to colleagues on non-confidential matters. There can be a dialogue between teacher governors and the remainder of the teaching staff that would not exist at formal or informal staff meetings, with the head, deputy head and hierarchy of the school present.
Teacher representation has existed in areas that I know of for a long time. It is emancipating for teachers to elect their representatives to the governing body, and, in a sense, call them to account or listen to what they have to say about matters discussed in meetings.
The balance is important. We also need representatives of the local community and the local authority on governing bodies. Representation from parents and teachers is of crucial importance, but, if it becomes too large, undue weight will be placed on their points of view.

Mr. Beith: I am following the hon. Gentleman's remarks with great interest. Does he agree that everything that he said supports the Taylor principle of trying to get a balance between the component parts, as his right hon. Friend clearly felt when in opposition? Any pattern that involves equal distribution between the various components, rather than the pattern set out in the Bill, is right.

Mr. Greenway: Movement is in that direction, and it is not unreasonable. However, I do not believe that we shall ever get quite the equality that is sought. It is not truly attainable. In the end it will come down to personalities. One or two rather forceful parents may be able to push for more than their weight of two places. The community may have weak representatives who, although greater in number, count for little in the

body's decision making. In all bodies of people, it is weight of personality that will count in the end. The weight carried by parent governors, teacher governors and other representatives will depend more on the knowledge, experience and determination that they bring to their views than upon the numbers involved. It is important to remember that.

Dr. Boyson: The hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) referred to the report of Lord Taylor, who I believe comes from Blackburn, which is in the the next valley to mine in Lancashire. We sometimes see his fleeting figure in the corridors of the House.
I believe that all hon. Members accept that parents and teachers should be on governing bodies. The parents have committed their children to the school, and therefore they have an intense interest in the standard of that school. Similarly, the teachers have their professional future and their daily satisfaction involved with that school.
It is a question of numbers and getting the right balance. The Taylor report advocated equal numbers. However, we felt that the important thing was not to make the governing body too big, because if it were too big it would lose its sense of being a close entity. Also, on a large body people feel that if they do not attend they will not put the proceedings of that body at risk.
We also feel that in so far as the local education authority is still largely responsible for the school, and is totally responsible for its financing, it is wrong to divide the responsibility for financing from that for running the school. Such a division could be dangerous and could turn a governing body into a talking shop, passing resolutions demanding more money and more resources which would have little effect in county hall.
I know that the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed does not agree with us on this matter, but we have left in the Bill the right of local authorities to have a majority on the governing body if they so wish. Once we did that, the rest followed on the limitation of numbers. I know that if the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed had his way the first restraint would not have been inserted.
I think that it is particularly important that there should be two parents on a governing body. If there is only one parent he may not feel that he can take part in the debate, and he may feel isolated. At least if there are two parents there is a mover and a seconder and a debate can go ahead.
Subsection (8) enables the head teacher to decide whether he will be a governor automatically or whether he will attend the governing body as a school official. If he decides to attend as a member of the governing body, which is his right, there are three teachers present. Obviously the head teacher will have some degree of communication with his staff. If he does not, no governing body can save that school. Thus, there will be three members of the teaching profession at the meeting—two staff members plus the head teacher. It is important to remember that if the head teacher wishes to attend as a voting governor he may do so.
If one looks at the Bill, one sees that it says "at least" two teachers. No limitation is put on enlightened authorities which might wish to have more than two parents and two teachers on the body. We have legislated for a bare minimum. In the Bill we have tried to enhance good practice. Many governing bodies already have bodies of teachers and bodies of parents, but we are picking up those who have not yet caught up with the main stream. We are laying down a minimum of two parents and two teachers.
Governing bodies are very important. Basically, they should keep an eye on the curriculum and the arrangements of the school. In my experience I have found that parent governors are most useful because they have committed their children to that school. When one is making political appointments, one should look to see whether there is among the members of one's party a parent with a child at that school. The most effective parent governors whom I have known have not been elected but have been nominated by their political party because their children were attending that school. That is better than nominees joining that body whose children attend schools elsewhere. They also have political influence outside in county halls and centres of power.
There is no means whereby that could be put in the Bill, even if I could persuade my own party. The Bill is an improvement on the existing situation. It is a question of extending good practice. We feel that the two plus one situation—the two teachers plus the headmaster, who can attend, if he wishes, as a full voting member of the governing body—is a big improvement.

Mr. Beith: I was interested to hear the hon. Gentleman's remarks about the party political parent. It would be an improvement on the practice of some authorities if, in appointing political nominees, they were chosen with some qualification to exercise the task. The approach suggested by the hon. Gentleman would only contribute to the cynicism about political parties that prevails among people who do not belong to them, or do not know much about them, and who take the view that one cannot get anywhere unless one belongs to the right group. I am thinking of areas where one political party has a prevailing influence.
The strategy recommended by the hon. Gentleman would not do his friends much good in County Durham. He will not get many parents on school governing bodies there. A different story would apply in some other parts of the country. We want to ensure that parents can become governors of schools without having to show the right party card and that parents placed on governing bodies are recognised not as token representatives but as equal partners. The hon. Gentleman did not make out a strong case against that. He made clear that what has determined the size of parents' representation has been the decision that the local authority should have the majority on the school governing body.
The tide of reason flowed up the beach of Conservatism a little further in the last Parliament but ebbed back in time for them to get into office. By that stage—I do not know under whose counsels—the principle of parity between these component parts had been lost. I do not think that the situation is satisfactory. We should increase the proportion of parent governors. I should have liked to go back to what Taylor wanted and what my party wanted, which was equal partners with guaranteed equal shares. At the very least, the parent representation should be three and not two.

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 14, Noes 254.

Division No. 173]
AYES
[9.28 pm


Alton, David
Heffer, Eric S.
Wigley, Dafydd


Canavan, Dennis
Lyon, Alexander (York)
Wright, Sheila


Cryer, Bob
Penhaligon, David



English, Michael
Price, Christopher (Lewisham West)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Field, Frank
Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)
Mr. Alan Beith and


Flannery, Martin
Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)
Mr. Russell Johnston.




NOES


Alexander, Richard
Finsberg, Geoffrey
Loveridge, John


Amery, Rt Hon Julian
Fisher, Sir Nigel
Lyell, Nicholas


Arnold, Tom
Fletcher, Alexander (Edinburgh N)
McCrindle, Robert


Atkins, Robert (Preston North)
Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Macfariane, Neil


Atkinson, David (B'mouth, East)
Fookes, Miss Janet
MacGregor, John


Baker, Kenneth (St. Marylebone)
Fox, Marcus
MacKay, John (Argyll)


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Fraser, Peter (South Angus)
McNair-Wilson, Michael (Newbury)


Bell, Sir Ronald
Fry, Peter
McNair-Wilson, Patrick (New Forest)


Bendall, Vivian
Gardiner George (Reigate)
McQuarrie, Albert


Benyon, Thomas (Abingdon)
Gardner, Edward (South Fylde)
Madel, David


Best, Keith
Garel-Jones, Tristan
Major, John


Bevan, David Gilroy
Glyn, Dr Alan
Marland, Paul


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Goodlad, Alastair
Marten, Neil (Banbury)


Biggs-Davison, John
Gorst, John
Mather, Carol


Blackburn, John
Gow, Ian
Maude, Rt Hon Angus


Blaker, Peter
Gower, Sir Raymond
Mawby, Ray


Body, Richard
Grant, Anthony (Harrow C)
Mawhinney, Dr Brian


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Gray, Hamish
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Greenway, Harry
Mayhew, Patrick


Bowden, Andrew
Grieve, Percy
Mellor, David


Boyson, Dr Rhodes
Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St Edmunds)
Meyer, Sir Anthony


Bradford, Rev. R.
Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)
Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove &amp; Redditch)


Braine, Sir Bernard
Grist, Ian
Mills, Peter (West Devon)


Bright, Graham
Grylls, Michael
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)


Brinton, Tim
Gummer, John Selwyn
Moate, Roger


Brittan, Leon
Hamilton, Hon Archie (Eps'm&amp;Ew'll)
Monro, Hector


Brocklebank-Fowler, Christopher
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Montgomery, Fergus


Brotherton, Michael
Hampson, Dr Keith
Moore, John


Brown, Michael (Brigg &amp; Sc'thorpe)
Hannam, John
Morris, Michael (Northampton, Sth)


Browne, John (Winchester)
Haselhurst, Alan
Morrison, Hon Peter (City of Chester)


Bruce-Gardyne, John
Hastings, Stephen
Mudd, David


Bryan, Sir Paul
Hawksiey, Warren
Murphy, Christopher


Buck, Antony
Hayhoe, Barney
Myles, David


Budgen, Nick
Heddle, John
Neale, Gerrard


Burden, F. A..
Henderson, Barry
Needham, Richard


Butler, Hon Adam
Haseltine, Rt Hon Michael
Nelson, Anthony 


Cadbury, Jocelyn
Hicks, Robert
Neubert, Michael


Carlisle, John (Luton West)
Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.
Newton, Tony


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Hill, James
Onslow, Cranley


Carlisle, Rt Hon Mark (Runcorn)
Hogg, Hon Douglas (Grantham)
Osborn, John


Chalker, Mrs Lynda
Holland, Philip (Carlton)
Page, John (Harrow, West)


Chapman, Sydney
Hooson, Tom
Page, Rt Hon Sir R. Graham


Clark, Sir William (Croydon South)
Hordern, Peter
Page, Richard (SW Hertfordshire)


Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)
Parkinson, Cecil


Cockeram, Eric
Hunt, David (Wirral)
Parris, Matthew


Colvin, Michael
Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)
Patten, John (Oxford)


Cormack, Patrick
Hurd, Hon Douglas
Pattie, Geoffrey


Corrie, John
Irvine, Charles (Cheltenham)
Pawsey, James


Costain A.. P.
Jenkin, Rt Hon Patrick
Percival, Sir Ian


Cranborne, Viscount
Johnson Smith, Geoffrey
Pink, R. Bonner


Critchley, Julian
Jopling, Rt Hon Michael
Porter, George


Crouch, David
Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith
Prentice, Rt Hon Reg


Dean, Paul (North Somerset)
Kershaw, Anthony
Price, David (Eastleigh)


Dickens, Geoffrey
King, Rt Hon Tom
Prior, Rt Hon James


Dorrell, Stephen
Kitson, Sir Timothy
Proctor, K. Harvey


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Knight, Mrs Jill
Raison, Timothy


Dover, Denshore
Knox David
Rathbone, Tim


du Cann, Rt Hon Edward
Lamont, Norman
Renton, Tim


Dunn, Robert (Dartford)
Lang, Ian
Rhodes James, Robert


Durant, Tony
Langford-Holt, Sir John
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)


Dykes, Hugh
Latham, Michael
Rost, Peter


Eden, Rt Hon Sir John
Lawrence, Ivan
Sainsbury, Hon Timothy


Elliott, Sir William
Lee, John
Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)


Emery, Peter
Le Merchant, Spencer
Shelton, William (Streatham)


Fairgrieve, Russell
Lonnox-Boyd, Hon Mark
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Faith, Mrs Sheila
Lester, Jim (Beeston)
Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge-Br'hills)


Farr, John
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Shersby, Michael


Fell Anthony
Lloyd, Ian (Havant &amp; Waterloo)
Silvester, Fred


Fenner, Mrs Peggy
Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)
Sims, Roger




Skeet, T. H. H.
Thornton, Malcolm
Watson, John


Spence, John
Townend, John (Bridlington)
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Spicer, Jim (West Dorset)
Townsend, Cyril D. (Bexleyheath)
Wells, Bowen (Hert'rd A Stev'nage)


Spicer, Michael (S Worcestershire)
Trippier, David
Wheeler, John


Sproal, Iain
Trotter, Neville
Whitney, Raymond


Squire, Robin
van Straubenzee, W. R.
Wickenden, Keith


Stainton, Keith
Vaughan, Dr Gerard
Wiggin, Jerry


Stanbrook, Ivor
Viggers, Peter
Wilkinson, John


Stanley, John
Waddington, David
Williams, Delwyn (Montgomery)


Stevens, Martin
Wakeham, John
Winterton, Nicholas


Stewart, John (East Renfrewshire)
Waldegrave, Hon William
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Stokes, John
Walker, Bill (Perth &amp; E Perthshire)
Younger, Rt Hon George


Stradling Thomas, J.
Walker-Smith, Rt Hon Sir Derek



Tapsell, peter
Waller, Gary
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Taylor, Robert (Croydon NW)
Walters, Dennis
Mr. John Cope and


Temple-Morris, Peter
Ward, John
Mr. Peter Brooke.


Thompson, Donald
Warren, Kenneth

Question accordingly negatived.

Clause 3

GROUPING OF SCHOOLS UNDER SINGLE GOVERNING BODY

Dr. Boyson: I beg to move amendment No. 3, in page 4, line 14, at end insert—
'(5) Any arrangement under this section may if it does not relate to any voluntary school, be terminated at any time by the local education authority by whom it was made, and any such arrangement which relates to a voluntary school may be terminated by agreement between the local education authority and the governing body constituted by the arrangement or, in default of agreement, by one year's notice served by the local education authority on the governing body or by one year's notice served by the governing body on the local education authority.'.
Subsection (5) empowers the Secretary of State to bring to an end, either in whole or in part, the grouping arrangement of schools. The provision ensures that he is in a position to enforce the Government's long-term policy that, in so far as it is practicable, each school should have its own governing body if he considers that at some time in the future an authority has been dilatory in bringing that about.
The Association of County Councils has pointed out that as presently drafted the clause makes no provision enabling a conscientious authority to degroup its governing schools of its own initiative.
On reflection, we agree that there should be such a provision, and the amendment simply repeats the provision presently made in section 20(5) of the 1944 Act for existing grouping arrangements. We are grateful to the ACC for drawing the Government's attention to this, and I shall be surprised if the House does not accept the amendment.
Briefly put, we wish that every school should eventually have its own governing body. Certain authorities feel that that would be too expensive in the short term because of the number of clerks required for the servicing of the governing bodies. As the Bill stands, the break-up into individual governing bodies can be enforced by the Secretary of State. The ACC asked for an amendment only to be tabled so that they could be broken up as soon as they could be serviced properly. It is a servicing amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 4

GOVERNORS' PROCEEDINGS AND TENURE OF OFFICE

Dr. Boyson: I beg to move amendment No. 4, in page 4, line 45, at end insert—
'and as to the publication of information relating to those meetings and proceedings.'
The amendment ensures that subsection (1) provides sufficient scope for the making of regulations concerning the publication of information about the meeting and proceedings of governing bodies. I do not think that anyone will object to the amendment.
We discussed the matter during the course of the previous Government's Bill last year, and there was agreement then. I am sorry to see that the hon. Member for Stockport, North (Mr. Bennett) is not in his seat. There was agreement on both sides of the Committee at that time that it was important that governing bodies' minutes were made public. During the Committee stage of that Bill there was considerable bipartisan agreement that some record of the proceedings of governing bodies should be made readily available to those directly interested. The Labour Ministers


in that Committee undertook to make suitable provision. All that we are doing is to ensure that that can be done under the Bill.

Amendment agreed to.

Dr. Boyson: I beg to move amendment No. 5, in page 5, line 11, leave out subsection (3) and insert—
'((3) Where an aided or special agreement school has an instrument of government made after the coming into force of section 2 above, any decision taken at a meeting of the governors shall, if it is of the kind specified in subsection (4) below, require confirmation at a second meeting of the governors held not less than twenty-eight days after the first.'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take amendment No. 6, in page 5, line 36, leave out subsection (5).

Dr. Boyson: We are moving faster now, and can join the two amendments. The amendments were brought forward because of discussions in Committee.
When discussing clause 4 at that time, my hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (Mr. van Straubenzee), who is in the Chamber, drew my attention to the concern felt by the Churches that the requirement for a second meeting to consider the matters listed in subsection (4) should be automatic. Their anxiety was that the provision that required a second confirmatory meeting only when requested by two or more governors might not provide sufficient protection for foundation interests on matters of fundamental importance.
The Bill was drafted in its present form in the belief that it provided sufficient protection for foundation interests. In view of the concern that has been expressed we have tabled the amendments to make the second meeting automatic, as requested by the Churches. It is being introduced for the protection of the foundation governors, so that no change can be made on something that affects them without a majority of foundation governors being present at the meeting. If they are not present at the first meeting, the second meeting will be automatic rather than it being asked for by two or more governors. I commend the amendments to the House.

Mr. William van Straubenzee: I am deeply obliged to my hon.

Friend for introducing the amendments. I am grateful to him also for telling me that I am in the Chamber. That is a reassuring thing to know.
I think that my hon. Friend will accept that a number of the possible decisions under subsection 4(4) are of a major order. They are fundamental, and could be of great importance to schools. As originally drafted—although not intended—it appeared that a decision to hold a second meeting might be called only if required by two or more governors.
I deployed the arguments in Committee, and I do not need to go over them now. This is typical of the way in which my hon. Friend approached his work throughout the long Committee stage. He has been very responsive to arguments that have been put to him, and I am very much obliged to him for his approach.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment made: No. 6, in page 5, line 36, leave out subsection (5).—[Dr. Boyson.]

Clause 6

PARENTAL PREFERENCES

Mr. Kinnock: I beg to move amendment No. 7 in page 6, line 25, at end insert
'in that authority or any other authority'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this we may take the following amendments:

No. 8, in page 6, line 35, at end add 'or—
'(d) if compliance with the preference would prejudice the provision of efficient education of another child, who lived nearer that school.

No. 9, in page 6, line 35, at end insert
'(d) if compliance with the preference would be incompatible with the arrangements for admission to schools in the authority which are not based wholly or partially on selection by reference to ability or aptitude'.

No. 10, in page 6, line 35, at end insert—
'(d) if compliance with the preference would prejudice the provision of efficient education of another child'.

No. 11, in page 7, line 1, leave out subsection (5) and insert—
'(5) In the event of a local education authority not complying with subsection (2)


above by virtue of the provisions of subsection (3)(c) above, the local education authority shall explain to the parent in writing the reasons why the preference cannot be complied with.'.

No. 12, in page 7, leave out lines 4 to 6.

No. 114, in clause 13, page 13, line 37, at end insert—
'(2) The rights and duties of subsection (1) above do not apply if compliance with the proposals of any person or governor of a school would prejudice the provision of efficient education or the efficient use of resources or the arrangements for admission to a proposed school or existing school are based wholly or partly on selection by reference to ability or aptitude.'.

Mr. Kinnock: Clause 6, which we are now discussing, concerns the fulfilment of parental preferences. As we noted in Committee, there is no difference in principle between the attitudes held by the two sides of the House towards the desirability of parents having preferences, expressing preferences and wherever possible, having those preferences fulfilled. However, the Bill sets down limitations which can be exercised by local education authorities.
This series of amendments would make the limitations more specific and would require that a local education authority had regard to matters which are not as yet included in the Bill. For example, amendment No. 7 would require that the local education authority should not have to meet the preference expressed by a parent if the compliance with that preference
would prejudice the provision of efficient education or the efficient use of resources
in that authority or any other authority. This is in anticipation of the circumstances which could arise as a consequence of the implementation of a later part of the Bill—the provision that has been made for the recoupment of costs between different local education authorities.
This and other aspects of the amendments are intended to ensure that where a parent expresses a preference it is a preference that is based upon a calculation of the educational amenities and opportunities that are available to that parent's children in the area in which they live. It should be in fulfilment of an educational desire for the future of that child, and should riot be employed as a

means of hopping from one area to another or from one school to another. For reasons either of commendable interest in their children or, in some cases. because of a misbegotten interpretation of what schools in the area offer, well advantaged or highly articulate parents sometimes abuse the right of preference.
The Government should have no difficulty in accepting that amendment, because it simply expands and defines the restraint which they have already sought to impose by means of the wording of the Bill.

Mr. Spearing: I agree that clauses 1 to 6 are similar to those contained in a previous Bill, but does not my hon. Friend agree that the effect of removing the requirement of an educational plan which measured efficiency of education and efficient use of resources, is that those clauses will be very different from what they would have been in the previous Bill?

Mr. Kinnock: I am happy to draw to the attention of the House the new clause which in happier circumstances, and without the guillotine, my hon. Friend would have moved. It is a sort of "War and Peace" new clause in that it continues for two whole sides of closely packed writing. It is an admirable use of the amendment paper, as well as an admirable exercise in Back Bench capacity. It would have been an admirable addition to the Bill, if we had had the opportunity of debating it.
Clause 6, in the right hands, dedicated to the advancement of educational opportunities and the fulfilment of educational preferences, set against the background of the educational plan in the new clause, is an excellent idea. In other hands, set against the background of a Bill that in many other respects provides special advantages for parents who are well able—becauseof their individual material advantages, or the advantages of their own education—to use the Bill to depart from the general non-selective provision in an area, is a different prospect altogether.
We tabled amendment No. 9 to ensure that, if compliance with the preference is incompatible with arrangements for admissions to schools in the authority area, which are not based wholly or partly on


selection by reference to ability or attitude, the preference need not be met. We seek to protect the non-selective provision in a particular local education authority area. The great danger arises, especially with the changes that are made in clauses 12 and 13, that schools can be set up. The use of schools can be changed to make a comprehensive, non-selective secondary education system in an area almost totally unworkable by ensuring that within that generally nonselective provision schools can be created that are either selective by tests of ability or attitude, or even, which is much worse in many ways, socially selective on the basis of the taste and not the educational preferences of parents. We see an illustration of that hovering on the horizon. I refer to the Twyford School in Ealing. The danger is that that could become an epidemic throughout many local education authorities. If the Government accepted the additional restraint upon the expression of preferences, the possibility of that occurring would be much smaller. The possibility of maintaining a non-selective pattern of secondary education, which is wholly desirable to the House, would be that much stronger.
I urge the Minister to give sympathetic consideration to this proposition. He recognises—although few Government supporters might agree with him—that, if the comprehensive system is required to live cheek by jowl, side by side, with the selective system, the comprehensive schools become the latter-day equivalent of the secondary modern schools, which no longer exist in many areas. Whatever the aspirations of the Minister to academic excellence—or whatever criteria he employs in the judgment of a school—he would not want the barrel of healthy, green, non-selective apples to be poisoned by the deposit of a rotten selective apple. I hope that he will take the advantage offered by this amendment to ensure that that is avoided.
The next amendment seeks to include a principle of which the Opposition are proud and one which we gladly espouse. I refer to the principle of the neighbourhood school. The shortcomings of neighbourhood schools are attributable largely to the failure, mainly of the Government—having acknowledged the afflictions that

some neighbourhood schools in some, especially disadvantaged neighbourhoods experience—to compensate for such disadvantages and to solve the educational problems in those areas.
Apart from those difficulties, the whole idea of the neighbourhood school is laudable. In the overwhelming majority of communities the neighbourhood school is well-established and unexceptionable. It is welcomed and depended on by the community. It is respected and recognised by the community and used for its proper educational and social purposes. It is in areas where there is a diversity of provision, where there is a proximity of secondary schools and secondary provision, that the problem of the neighbourhood school and enmity towards it arises. That should present a challenge. The Government should seek not to avoid the problem but to recognise and move to meet it.
In asking in amendment No. 10 that the preference be restrained if compliance with it would prejudice the provision of efficient education for another child, we are seeking to prevent the creaming off and the mobility that can diminish and possibly destroy the proper provision of education for children whose parents either cannot or will not shift them around between schools.
Amendment No. 11 requires that, in the event of a local education authority not complying with a preference expressed by a parent by virtue of the provisions of subsection (3)(c), because there is a selective secondary school system in its area, that local education authority shall explain to the parents in writing the reasons why the preference cannot be compiled with.
If local education authorities still have selection at the age of 11 for secondary schools, or might take advantage of the Education (No. 1) Bill or this Bill, if a permissive Government give favourable regard to the reinstitution of 11-plus examinations, we want those authorities to provide an explanation to the parents of why a child has not been successful in those selection tests. Notices appear in newspapers, there are letters from directors of education, and announcements are made in school assembly, but no attempt is made to explain to parents that it is the upholding of this deluded system of


selection and testing that has meant that some children at the age of 11 are regarded as successes and some as failures.
Local authorities should be faced with the prospect of having a duty to make that explanation to the parents of children who have not been successful in those examinations and to explain why the parents' preference cannot be met. That duty should be imposed on them so that they have to justify their adherence to the educationally insupportable practice of selection by examination at the age of 11.

Dr. Boyson: I recommend my hon. Friends to resist the amendment. It would limit the parental choice, about which we are very concerned, that is built into the early clauses.
On amendment No. 7, a choice must be made without affecting the efficient use of resources in the local authority area in which that choice is made. Acceptance of the amendment would mean that the efficient use of resources would have to be considered in that authority or in any other authority. If a child who lived on the border between authority A or authority B wanted to go to a school in the area of authority B, before that authority could accept the child it would have to

check with authority A that acceptance of the child would not affect the efficient use of resources there. The amendment would import a limitation, massive bureaucracy and a huge abuse of expenditure which we would not wish.

The battle on recoupment tomorrow evening will be exciting, and many of us look forward to it. In North-West London and other areas the question of automatic recoupment, so that there can be movement between schools that were built before the new boundaries were made, is something that parents want. We do not want any limitation on that.

Amendment No. 8 deals with neighbourhood schools. We should all like to see these schools working, but we also know the limitations of neighbourhood schools in many areas of our cities at present—

It being Ten o'clock, Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER proceeded, pursuant to the Order [29 January] and the resolution this day, to put forthwith the Question already proposed from the Chair.

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 242, Noes 315.

Division No. 174]
AYES
[10 pm


Abse, Leo
Conlan, Bernard
Field, Frank


Adams, Allen
Cook, Robin F.
Fitch, Alan


Allaun, Frank
Cowans, Harry
Flannery, Martin


Anderson, Donald
Cox, Tom (Wandsworth, Tooting)
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Craigen, J. M. (Glasgow, Maryhill)
Foot, Rt Hon Michael


Armstrong, Rt Hon Ernest
Crowther, J. S.
Forrester, John


Ashley, Rt Hon Jack
Cryer, Bob
Foster Derek


Ashton, Joe
Cunliffe, Lawrence
Foulkes, George


Atkinson, Norman (H'gey, Tott'ham)
Cunningham, George (Islington S)
Fraser, John (Lambeth, Norwood)


Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)
Cunningham, Dr John (Whitehaven)
Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald


Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (Heywood)
Dalyell, Tam
Garrett, John (Norwich S)


Benn, Rt Hon Anthony Wedgwood
Davidson, Arthur
Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend)


Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)
Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Lianelll)
George, Bruce


Bidwell, Sydney
Davies, I for (Gower)
Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John


Booth, Rt Hon Albert
Davis, Clinton (Hackney Central)
Ginsburg, David


Boothroyd, Miss Betty
Deakins, Eric
Golding, John


Bottomley, Rt Hon Arthur (M'brough)
Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)
Gourlay, Harry


Bradley, Tom
Dempsey, James
Graham, Ted


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Dewar, Donald
Grant, George (Morpeth)


Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)
Dixon, Donald
Grant, John (Islington C)


Brown, Robert C. (Newcastle W)
Dobson, Frank
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)


Brown, Ronald W. (Hackney S)
Dormand, Jack
Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)


Brown, Ron (Edinburgh, Leith)
Douglas, Dick
Harrison, Rt Hon Walter


Buchan, Norman
Douglas-Mann, Bruce
Hart, Rt Hon Dame Judith


Callaghan, Jim (Middleton &amp; P)
Duffy, A.. E. P.
Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy


Campbell, Ian
Dunn, James A. (Liverpool, Kirkdale)
Haynes, Frank


Campbell-Savours, Dale
Eadie, Alex
Heffer, Eric S.


Canavan, Dennis
Eastham, Ken
Hogg, Norman (E Dunbartonshire);


Cant, R. B.
Edwards, Robert (Wolv SE)
Holland, Stuart (L'beth, Vauxhall)


Carmichael, Neil
Ellis, Raymond (NE Derbyshire)
Home Robertson, John


Carter-Jones, Lewis
Ellis, Tom (Wrexham)
Homewood, William


Cartwright, John
English, Michael
Hooley, Frank


Clark, Dr David (South Shields)
Ennals, Rt Hon David
Horam, John


Cocks, Rt Hon Michael (Bristol S)
Evans, Ioan (Aberdare)
Huckfield, Les


Cohen, Stanley
Evans John (Newton)
Hughes, Mark (Durham)


Coleman, Donald
Ewing, Harry
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen North)


Concannon, Rt Hon I. D.
Faulds, Andrew
Hughes, Roy (Newport)




Janner, Hon Greville
Millan, Rt Hon Bruce
Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)


Jay, Rt Hon Douglas
Miller, Dr M. S. (East Kilbride)
Silverman, Julius


John, Brynmor
Mitchell, Austin (Grimsby)
Smith, Rt Hon J. (North Lanarkshire)


Johnson, Walter (Derby South)
Mitchell, R. C. (Soton, Itchen)
Soley, Clive


Jones, Barry (East Flint)
Morris, Rt Hon Alfred (Wythenshawe)
Spearing, Nigel


Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Morris, Rt Hon Charles (Openshaw)
Spriggs, Leslie


Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Morris, Rt Hon John (Aberavon)
Stallard, A. W.


Kerr, Russell
Morton, George
Stoddart, David


Kilroy-Silk, Robert
Moyle, Rt Hon Roland
Stott, Roger


Kinnock, Neil
Mulley, Rt Hon Frederick
Strang, Gavin


Lambie, David
Newens, Stanley
Straw, Jack


Lamborn, Harry
Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon
Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley


Lamond, James
Ogden, Eric
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton West)


Leadbitter, Ted
O'Halloran, Michael
Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)


Leighton, Ronald
O'Neill, Martin
Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)


Lest or, Miss Joan (Eton &amp; Slough)
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley
Thomas, Mike (Newcastle East)


Lewis, Arthur (Newham North West)
Owen, Rt Hon Dr David
Thomas, Dr Roger (Carmarthen)


Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Palmer, Arthur
Thorne, Stan (Preston South)


Litherland, Robert
Park, George
Tilley, John


Lofthouse, Geoffrey
Parker, John
Torney, Tom


Lyon, Alexander (York)
Parry, Robert
Urwin, Rt Hon Tom


Lyons, Edward (Bradford West)
Pavitt, Laurie
Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.


Mabon, Rt Hon Dr J. Dickson
Pendry, Tom
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)


McCartney, Hugh
Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)
Walker, Rt Hon Harold (Doncaster)


McDonald, Dr Oonagh
Prescott, John
Weetch, Ken


McElhone, Frank
Price, Christopher (Lewisham West)
Wellbeloved, James


McKay, Allen (Penistone)
Race, Reg
Welsh, Michael


McKelvey, William
Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn (Leeds South)
White, Frank R. (Bury &amp; Radcliffe)


MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor
Richardson, Jo
White, James (Glasgow, Pollok)


Maclennan, Robert
Roberts, Allan (Bootle)
Whitehead, Phillip


McMahon, Andrew
Roberts, Ernest (Hackney North)
Whitlock, William


McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, Central)
Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)
Wigley, Dafydd


McNally, Thomas
Robertson, George
Willey, Rt Hon Frederick


McNamara, Kevin
Robinson, Geoffrey (Coventry NW)
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)


McWilliam, John
Rodgers, Rt Hon William
Wilson, Rt Hon Sir Harold (Huyton)


Magee, Bryan
Rooker, J. W.
Wilson, William (Coventry SE)


Marks, Kenneth
Roper, John
Winnick, David


Marshall, David (Gl'sgow, Shettles'n)
Ross, Ernest(Dundee West)
Woodall, Alec


Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)
Rowlands, Ted
Wrigglesworth, Ian


Marshall, Jim (Leicester South)
Ryman, John
Wright, Sheila


Martin, Michael (Gl'gow, Springb'rn)
Sandelson, Neville
Young, David (Bolton East)


Maxton, John
Sever, John



Maynard, Miss Joan
Sheerman, Barry
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Meacher, Michael
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert (A'ton-u-L)
Mr. Terry Davis and


Mikardo, Ian
Short, Mrs Renée
Mr. James Tinn.




NOES


Adley, Robert
Brocklebank-Fowler, Christopher
Dunn, Robert (Dartford)


Aitken, Jonathan
Brooke, Hon Peter
Durant, Tony


Alexander, Richard
Brotherton, Michael
Dykes, Hugh


Alton, David
Brown, Michael (Brigg &amp; Sc'thorpe)
Eden, Rt Hon Sir John


Amery, Rt Hon Julian
Browne, John (Winchester)
Eggar, Timothy


Ancram, Michael
Bruce-Gardyne, John
Elliott, Sir William


Arnold, Tom
Bryan, Sir Paul
Emery, Peter


Aspinwall, Jack
Buck, Antony
Fairbairn, Nicholas


Atkins, Rt Hon H. (Spelthorne)
Budgen, Nick
Fairorieve, Russell


Atkins, Robert (Preston North)
Bulmer, Esmond
Faith, Mrs Sheila


Atkinson, David (B'mouth, East)
Burden, F. A.
Farr, John


Baker, Kenneth (St. Marylebone)
Butcher, John
Fell, Anthony


Baker, Nicholas (North Dorset)
Butler, Hon Adam
Fenner, Mrs Peggy


Banks, Robert
Cadbury, Jocelyn
Finsberg, Geoffrey


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Carlisle, John (Luton West)
Fisher, Sir Nigel


Beith, A. J.
Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Fletcher, Alexander (Edinburgh N)


Bell, Sir Ronald
Carlisle, Rt Hon Mark (Runcorn)
Fletcher-Cooke, Charles


Bendall, Vivian
Chalker, Mrs Lynda
Fookes, Miss Janet


Benyon, Thomas (Abingdon)
Channon, Paul
Forman, Nigel


Benyon, W. (Buckingham)
Chapman, Sydney
Fowler, Rt Hon Norman


Best, Keith
Clark, Hon Alan (Plymouth, Sutton)
Fox, Marcus


Bevan, David Gilroy
Clark, Sir William (Croydon South)
Fraser, Peter (South Angus)


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Freud, Clement


Biggs-Davison, John
Cockeram, Eric
Fry, Peter


Blackburn, John
Colvin, Michael
Galbraith, Hon T. G. D.


Blaker, Peter
Cope, John
Gardiner George (Reigate)


Body, Richard
Cormack, Patrick
Gardner, Edward (South Fylde)


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Corrie, John
Garel-Jones, Tristan


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Costain, A. P.
Gllmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian


Bottomley, Peter (Woolwich West)
Cranborne, Viscount
Glyn, Dr Alan


Bowden, Andrew
Critchley, Julian
Goodlad, Alastair


Boyson, Dr Rhodes
Crouch, David
Gorst, John


Bradford, Rev. R.
Dean, Paul (North Somerset)
Gow, Ian


Braine, Sir Bernard
Dickens, Geoffrey
Gower, Sir Raymond


Bright, Graham
Dorrell, Stephen
Grant, Anthony (Harrow C)


Brinton, Tim
Dover, Denshore
Gray, Hamish


Brittan, Leon
du Cann, Rt Hon Edward
Greenway, Harry







Grieve, Percy
Marshall, Michael (Arundel)
Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)


Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St Edmunds)
Marten, Neil (Banbury)
Shelton, William (Streatham)


Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)
Mates, Michael
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Grimond, Rt Hon J.
Mather, Carol
Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge-Br'hills)


Grist, Ian
Maude, Rt Hon Angus
Shersby, Michael


Grylls, Michael
Mawby, Ray
Silvester, Fred


Gummer, John Selwyn
Mawhinney, Dr Brian
Sims, Roger


Hamilton, Hon Archie (Eps'm&amp;Ew'll)
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Skeet, T. H. H.


Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Mayhew, Patrick
Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)


Hampson Dr Keith
Mellor, David
Smith, Dudley (War, and Leam'ton)


Hannam,John
Meyer, Sir Anthony
Speed, Keith


Haselhurst, Alan
Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove &amp; Redditch)
Speller, Tony


Hastings, Stephen
Mills, Iain (Meriden)
Spence, John


Hawksley, Warren
Mills, Peter (West Devon)
Spicer, Jim (West Dorset)


Hayhoe Barney
Miscampbell, Norman
Spicer, Michael (S Worcestershire)


Heddle, John
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)
Sproat, Iain


Henderson, Barry
Moate, Roger
Squire, Robin


Haseltine, Rt Hon Michael
Molyneaux, James
Stainton, Keith


Hicks, Robert
Monro, Hector
Stanbrook, Ivor


Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.
Montgomery, Fergus
Stanley, John


Hill, James
Moore, John
Steel, Rt Hon David


Hogg, Hon Douglas (Grantham)
Morris, Michael (Northampton, Sth)
Steen, Anthony


Holland, Philip (Carlton)
Morrison, Hon Charles (Devizes)
Stevens, Martin


Hooson, Tom
Morrison, Hon Peter (City of Chester)
Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)


Hordern, Peter
Mudd, David
Stewart, John (East Renfrewshire)


Howell, Rt Hon David (Guildford)
Murphy, Christopher
Stokes, John


Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)
Myles, David
Stradling Thomas, J.


Hunt, David (Wirral)
Neale, Gerrard
Tapsell, Peter


Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)
Needham, Richard
Taylor, Robert (Croydon NW)


Hurd, Hon Douglas
Nelson, Anthony
Tebbit, Norman


Irvine, Charles (Cheltenham)
Neubert, Michael
Temple-Morris, Peter


Jenkin, Rt Hon Patrick
Newton, Tony
Thatcher, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret


Johnson Smith, Geoffrey
Onslow, Cranley
Thomas, Rt Hon Peter (Hendon S)


Johnston, Russell (Iverness)
Osborn, John
Thompson, Donald


Jopling, Rt Hon Michael
Page, John (Harrow, West)
Thorne, Neil (Ilford South)


Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith
Page, Rt Hon Sir R. Graham
Thornton, Malcolm


Kaberry, Sir Donald
Page, Richard (SW Hertfordshire)
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Kershaw, Anthony
Parkinson, Cecil
Townsend, Cyril D. (Bexleyheath)


Kimball, Marcus
Parris, Matthew
Trippier, David


King, Rt Hon Tom
Patten, Christopher (Bath)
Trotter, Neville


Kitson, Sir Timothy
Patten, John (Oxford)
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Knight, Mrs Jill
Pattie, Geoffrey
Vaughan, Dr Gerard


Knox David
Pawsey, James
Viggers, Peter


Lamont, Norman
Penhaligon, David
Waddington, David


Lang, Ian
Percival, Sir Ian
Wakeham, John


Langford-Holt, Sir John
Peyton, Rt Hon John
Waldegrave, Hon William


Latham, Michael
Pink, R. Bonner
Walker, Bill (Perth &amp; E Perthshire)


Lawrence, Ivan
Pollock, Alexander
Walker-Smith, Rt Hon Sir Derek


Lawson, Nigel
Porter, George
Waller, Gary


Lee, John
Powell, Rt Hon J. Enoch (S Down)
Wallers, Dennis


Le Merchant, Spencer
Prentice, Rt Hon Reg
Ward, John


Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark
Price, David (Eastleigh)
Warren, Kenneth


Lester, Jim (Beeston)
Prior, Rt Hon James
Watson, John


Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Proctor, K. Harvey
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Lloyd, Ian (Havant &amp; Waterloo)
Raison, Timothy
Wells, Bowen (Hert'rd &amp; Stev'nage)


Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)
Rathbone, Tim
Wheeler, John


Loveridge, John
Rees, Peter (Dover and Deal)
Whitney, Raymond


Luce, Richard
Rees-Davies, W. R.
Wickenden, Keith


Lyell, Nicholas
Renton, Tim
Wiggin, Jerry


McCrindle, Robert
Rhodes James, Robert
Wilkinson, John


McCusker, H.
Ridsdale, Julian
Williams, Delwyn (Montgomery)


Macfarlane, Neil
Rifkind, Malcolm
Winterton, Nicholas


MacKay, John (Argyll)
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)
Wolfson, Mark


McNair-Wilson, Michael (Newbury)
Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)
Young, Sir George (Acton)


McNair-Wilson, Patrick (New Forest)
Ross, Wm. (Londonderry)
Younger, Rt Hon George


McQuarrie, Albert
Rost, Peter



Madel, David
Royle, Sir Anthony
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Major, John
Sainsbury, Hon Timothy
Mr. John MacGregor and


Marland, Paul
St. John Stevas, Rt Hon Norman
Lord James Douglas-Hamilton


Marlow, Tony

Question accordingly negatived.

Schedule 2

SCHOOL ADMISSION APPEALS

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I am now required to put the Question on any amendments up to the end of schedule 2 moved by a member of the Government. There are three Government amendments and it might save the time of the House if the House were to indicate whether it desired a Division on amendments Nos. 75, 76 or 77.

Amendments made: No. 75, in page 37, line 22, at end insert—
'3A.. An appeal committee constituted in accordance with paragraph 2 or 3 above shall be included in the bodies to which sections 173(4) and 174 of the Local Government Act 1972 (allowances) apply.'.

No. 76, in page 38, line 1, after '9', insert
'Appeals pursuant to arrangements made under section 7 of this Act shall be heard in private except when otherwise directed by the authority or governors by whom the arrangements are made but'.

No. 77, in page 38, line 11, at end insert
'; and neither section 106 of the Local Government Act 1972 nor paragraph 44 of Schedule 12 to that Act (procedure of committees of local authorities) shall apply to an appeal committee constituted in accordance with paragraph 1 above.'.—[Dr. Boyson.]

Clause 9

NURSERY SCHOOLS AND SPECIAL SCHOOLS

Mrs. Ann Taylor: I beg to move amendment No. 16, in page 9, line 23, leave out from beginning to 'in' in line 24 and insert—
'A local education authority may, at its discretion, implement the provisions of sections 6, 7 and 8 above'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this amendment we may take amendment No. 123, in page 9, line 24, leave out from 'nursery schools' to end of line 25.

Mrs. Taylor: I will speak briefly on this amendment not because it is unimportant but because there are many hon. Members on both sides of the House who wish to speak on amendment No. 123.
The amendment seeks to ensure that the provisions in clauses 6, 7 and 8—the clauses relating to parental preference, the appeals system and to information about schools—should apply at the discretion of the local education authority to nursery schools and special schools as well as to those already covered by the provisions of these clauses.
Many hon. Members wish to speak on the issue of special schools. The Opposition feel that as far as possible special schools should be treated as ordinary schools. We do not see why the provisions of clauses 6, 7 and 8 should not apply to special schools. We accept that different arrangements may be, and often are, made about admissions. These clauses do not relate simply to admissions to special schools and the criteria laid down for admission. The clauses relate to the position of parents and the degree to which they can exercise influence or choice about the special school to which their child may be allocated and the information to which such a parent is entitled about that school. We see no reason why that information should not be forthcoming to the parents and we believe, as do many organisations outside the House such as the National Society for Mentally Handicapped Children, that the way in which the Government have presented the matter discriminates against children and parents of children in special schools. We cannot see any hardships that would ensue if the Government accepted our proposals.
10.15 pm
In a recent debate, the Under-Secretary referred to the Warnock report. He said that the Government would make a statement about their position in relation to that report. We believe that the amendment is in line with the spirit of the report. The amendment would allow special schools and children in those schools to be treated in almost the same way as children in ordinary schools. We hope that the Minister will accept the principle of our amendment.
The clause and the amendment also relate to nursery schools. We discussed the subject briefly in Committee. At that time, some interesting facts emerged. At times, the Minister surprised the Committee with indications about possible appeals for certain under-fives. He


indicated that there would be different rights for parents of different 4-year-olds in different circumstances. For example, the parents of a 4-year-old child who were asking for a place at an infant school for that rising-five would have a right of appeal under clause 7 if the application were turned down.
We welcome the extension of the appeal system to that extent, but it creates an anomaly. The Secretary of State spent some time this afternoon telling the House that it was his duty to clarify the law and clear up anomalies. However, by their approach to this question, the Government are creating another anomaly. The 4-year-old whose parents wish him to go to an infant school as a rising-five will have a right of appeal if the place is refused but a 4-year-old whose parents wish him to go to a nursery school will have no right of appeal. While many parents would welcome the admission of their 4-year-old into an infant school, others believe that under-fives can be taught more effectively and appropriately at nursery school. That is one difficulty that the Minister has not faced.
In view of the new clause relating to the provision of nursery education that was passed today, and because of our fears about the way in which the new clause will work in practice and the reduction in available nursery school places, we believe that it is more important that the subject of clause 8, relating to information, should be made to apply as widely as possible and should relate to nursery schools. We believe that there is a possibility that many local authorities will reduce the number of nursery school places. It is therefore even more important that parents have a right to know the basis on which allocations are made.
Those are important points. In Committee the Minister was not particularly forthcoming. Indeed, some of his remarks added to the confusion and the anomalies. I hope that he will clarify the position. I also hope that he will indicate his sympathy towards the problems that he is creating for children in special schools and for their parents. I hope that he will take action to clear up the anomaly of the treatment of 4-year-olds in infant and primary schools, and those in nursery schools. We need some re-

assurance about the Minister's attitude towards the issues that we have raised.

Mr. David Price: I wish to speak to amendment No. 123. If the amendment is accepted, it will remove the words
special schools or children in need of special educational treatment.
from the clause. The clause excludes the parents of children in special schools from the provisions of the preceding three clauses. Those clauses assist parents. They give them rights.
I had hoped that it would be unnecessary to argue the case. However, I must apparently do so. When the clause was discussed in Committee, the Minister said:
This clause was drafted with the best of intentions".
Of course, my hon. Friend always has the best of intentions. He continued:
but if it can be shown that there would be overwhelming advantage in changing it, we shall come back to it on Report."—[Official Report, Standing Committee D, 18 December 1979; c. 847.]
The case has been made. There is an overwhelming disadvantage in leaving the clause as it is. If our amendment is accepted it will remove the disadvantage that my hon. Friend is imposing on the parents of disabled children. That is entirely in line with Government thinking. When the present Leader of the House—that most distinguished of my many distinguished colleagues—was Shadow spokesman for education, he spoke during a debate on a previous education Bill. With his normal ability to get to the heart of the matter, he said:
We also welcome that part of the new clause under which parents are brought in.
Mark those words. He continued:
That is in accordance with our philosophy of increasing parental influence in education and our belief that, if a child is to go to a special school, parental consent is required."—[Official Report, 1 July 1976; Vol. 914, c. 724.]
That is entirely in line with the recommendations of the Warnock report on the special educational needs of handicapped children. The chapter in the Warnock report entitled "Parents as Partners"—I suggest that clause 9 denies that concept—begins:
We have insisted throughout this report that the successful education of children with special educational needs is dependent upon the full involvement of their parents; indeed,


unless the parents are seen as equal partners in the educational process the purpose of our report will be frustrated.
Are we, so early on in the consideration of the report, to frustrate its whole purpose?
May I anticipate my hon. Friend's reply? He gave us a trailer in an earlier debate. He indicated that it was possible, come the spring and the crocuses and tulips, that some Green Paper, some White Paper, or a White Paper with green edges—a little discussion paper on Warnock—would be published. That response is not adequate, because my hon. Friend gave no indication about early legislation upon or implementation of the Warnock report. Even had he done so, we know that the best of departmental legislative intentions in February have a habit of being frustrated by other priorities of Governments come October and November and the Queen's Speech.
If my hon. Friend insists on that as his only defence, I am reminded of a young man who has been walking out for many months with a girl. He is asked "John, how are you getting on? Have you proposed yet?" He replies "Oh, yes. I popped the question." "Did she accept you or refuse you?" "No. She said 'Ask me again in a year's time.' "One knows the value of that sort of acceptance, and that is what we have so far been offered by my hon. Friend.
I suggest that the amendment has the merit that it does justice but does not cost public money. My hon. Friend will not be hauled over the coals by the Chief Secretary or any of his satellites. All members of his Department will be able to look their Treasury colleagues straight in the eye.
The clause is a grey provision, drafted by grey little lawyers, with grey little hearts. I invite my hon. Friend to reject the grey advice. He is a bigger man than that. He should allow his natural instincts for generosity to have the better of that little grey bit of paper with the black, but not the grey, words on it "Resist, resist." We all know the way that it is done. He would do better to have in front of him the words of that great American poet, Emerson, who said
Let us treat men and women well; treat them as if they were real; perhaps they are.
I promise my hon. Friend that if he treats the parents of handicapped children

as if they were real—and I suggest that they are—he will not run into difficulty with his Treasury colleagues and he will do justice to those real people whom the whole House respects and wishes to help.

Mr. Ashley: I support most of what the hon. Member for Eastleigh (Mr. Price) said, but he is wrong in saying that the clause is drawn up with the best of intentions. The clause is based on a misunderstanding. I do not know whether the intention is good or bad, but it is a condescending and patronising clause, which some of us bitterly resent. It will deprive parents of disabled children of the rights given to the parents of non-disabled children.
I know that the Minister is sympathetic, and I am sure that the Secretary of State is, too. But somehow, they have been persuaded to put the clause in the Bill. Why should they prevent parents of handicapped children having a voice in the choice of their child's school?
I do not want to make this a party political issue. It is not. I simply remind the Secretary of State that in the previous Government the Minister with responsibilities for the disabled went out of his way to bring into Warnock a representative of the disabled—Mrs. Tumin.
10.30 pm
With this clause, the disabled are still being deprived of that voice. The parents of disabled children, who should be allowed to speak out are being gagged. There is nothing worse than parents of a disabled child seeing that child beaten in the rat race. In life's rat race, disabled children suffer. No matter how much sympathy is expressed, no matter how many warm words are uttered or bromides offered, they suffer and fall behind. Disablement is exactly what it has been called. It is a handicap.
The parents of disabled children want to speak out and help their children as much as, if not more than, other parents. This clause deprives them of that voice. I believe that the clause must be based on some misunderstanding. I hope that the Minister will give an assurance that it is to be withdrawn. The question of principle is applicable to the clause. If the Minister accepts the principle adumbrated in our amendment he should withdraw the clause. There is no point in giving


an assurance that it will be withdrawn at a later date.
A principle is a principle. If public expenditure were involved I would still argue as a Labour Member, but public expenditure is not involved. The Minister should be able to say that although there are difficulties and problems the Government are prepared to deal with them and give parents the vital voice that they require.
I beg the Secretary of State to think again. It is rumoured that we may have to go to a Division. I hope that the rumours are wrong. I hope that the Government will withdraw clause 9 and show that, whatever their faults, they are not prepared to gag the parents of disabled children when the education of their children is discussed.

Mr. Hannam: I wish to follow the line taken by the right hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ashley), who plays an important part in the affairs of the disabled and is chairman of the All-Party Disablement Group. It is through that group that this amendment has been tabled. Hon. Members have taken part in discussions prior to this debate with the Under Secretary of State, who received us with great understanding and sympathy. I should like to capitalise on that in my contribution.
Usually, on Report, when amendments are tabled on behalf of the disabled, we find ourselves squeezed out at the end of the debate. It is unusual to find that we are opening the batting twice, in separate guillotined periods, with a better chance of debating the matter fully and giving everyone a chance to hear the Minister's reply.
I find myself in some difficulty. I cannot believe that this fearful clause is intentional. The clause must be intentional, because it discriminates against the disabled and the handicapped. No financial implication is involved. The Government cannot, therefore, be taking a defensive posture because of pressure from the Treasury. The words of the clause stating that none of the much-welcomed provisions of clauses 6, 7 and 8 shall

have effect in relation to nursery schools, special schools or children in need of special educational treatment
strike a fierce blow at all those concerned with progress towards greater integration of disabled people. That is the main objective, and it is the objective stated by the Minister in the previous debate.
The clause expressly withholds parental choice and information on parental preferences from parents whose children are to go to nursery schools or special schools, and from parents whose children are deemed to be in need of special educational treatment. I and other members of the All-Party Disablement Group, plus all the organisations representing the handicapped, see no reason for this, particularly when these provisions are very carefully hedged already with safeguards in the Bill.
I was very pleased to hear, in the debate on clauses 2 and 5, that my hon. Friend is planning to bring forward proposals on the Warnock report possibly in the next parliamentary year. He will obviously want to deal with many of these aspects in that legislation, but that inevitably is some way off; in fact it may never come. This Bill is with us now, in the present, and it represents discrimination in its worst form against handicapped people because it widens the gap when we should be closing it in preparation for Warnock and the fuller integration of the disabled in our society.
Clauses 6 to 8 provide for arrangements to be made for parents to express a preference for a particular school, and those responsible for admissions are required to comply with such a preference, except where to do so would prejudice the provision of efficient education or the efficient use of resources. There is a get-out for any local authority or local education authority. Another hedge is where it would be incompatible with admission arrangements agreed between the governors of an aided or special agreement school and a local education authority.
Another hedge is where it would be incompatible with admission arrangements based upon selection by reference to ability or aptitude. That is in clause 6. There are provisions for appeals in clause 7 and schedule 2. Clause 8 provides for information to be published for each year in terms of admissions, parental


preferences and appeals, and other information required by regulations made by the Secretary of State. Parents of handicapped children are no less anxious to exercise choice in respect of the schools to which their children go than are parents of non-disabled children.
As hon. Members will know from constituency cases, parents of handicapped children often have to face very difficult arguments with local education authorities to secure what they believe is right for their children. They often have to fight, for example, to get their child into an ordinary local school, or into a special nursery school a year or so earlier than the non-handicapped child, or even into a special school specialising in a particular disability.
If the clause is enacted the position of those parents will be weakened when all other parents' rights are being strengthened. The Government really cannot believe that to be right. I know that they agree in principle with the arguments that my hon. Friends and Opposition Members are putting forward on this amendment.
It has been suggested that handicapped children's parents have been excluded from the provisions of clauses 6 to 8 because the needs of such children have to be carefully assessed and the provision that is required is often very specialised. Against this argument I would argue, first, that the expression of choice of a school for a handicapped child by the parents is in no way incompatible with careful assessment of the handicapped child's needs and the provision of what is required. There is no contradiction in agreeing that the pupils going to special schools have to be particularly assessed and still giving the parents the rights under the Bill.
Secondly, I argue that the provisions required are often not at all specialised. Sometimes it is merely a question of physical access to the school buildings.
Thirdly, in respect of many insubstantially handicapped children, I argue that the decisions about the right school for such children are not different in kind or degree from the decisions made in respect of a non-disabled child. The spectrum of disabilities of all kinds runs from the disabled at one end to the non-disabled at the other, and there is no

clear dividing line between the two that could possibly justify treating the parents of handicapped children differently from the parents of non-handicapped children.
We have little time tonight to debate the matter, but I strongly entreat the Government, and the Minister when he winds up, to make a concession to all hon. Members. It is an act of discrimination that we cannot possibly tolerate.

Mr. Beith: It was in response to an amendment that I moved in Committee that the Minister said that we should look at this matter again on Report and that in the meantime we should see what the strength of feeling and attitudes were. He has now seen how strong the feeling is in all parts of the House. I am sure that he has received, as we have done, representations from the organisations dealing with the handicapped, which feel very bitter that they should have been treated in this way by a clause in the Bill.
The decision where a handicapped or disabled child should go is one that has to be taken with a great deal of care, but that is no reason why the rights of parents of handicapped children should be undermined, either in relation to special schools or to those children who are simply in need of some special educational treatment. There are now strong feelings about this, and I do not believe that it would be right for the Bill to be left as it is while we wait for wider recommendations affecting the disabled.
I hope that the Minister recognises the strong feelings that exist and that he will give way now instead of being forced to do so.

Mr. Michael Colvin: The trouble about being too far down the line is that one has one's foxes successfully shot by other hon. Members. That has happened to me this evening. Therefore, my contribution can be short and necessarily sharp.
All hon. Members have referred to the Warnock report. I should like to quote briefly from another section entitled "Dialogue with Parents". It states:
Parents of children with special needs require three principal forms of co-operative support—information, advice and practical help.
Information is power, and information about schools is parent power. That is


something of which we should all approve. However, without the amendment, a most important section of parents is in danger of being denied information on which to base important decisions about special schools for their handicapped children. That is something that we should not tolerate. I hope that that is not really intended by the Government.
Many Conservative Members with a particular interest in the needs of the handicapped and the disabled cannot stand by and see the parents of these children relegated to the status of second-class citizens. Why should they not be treated like the parents of ordinary children? Why should they be denied the information, as the clause suggests? It can be argued that in the case of special schools there is little choice. That is regrettable, but it is no reason for a denial of parental rights, and certainly no reason why discretion in this matter should be left to the local authorities.
The Tory Party believes in freedom of choice and information. Both are denied by the clause. That is why I commend amendment No. 1:23 to the House.

Mr. Carter-Jones: I shall speak briefly in order to give the Minister a chance to recant and to see the light. If he does not see the light now, I promise him that the other place will see it and that this debate will occur twice. On both occasions there will be attacks on the Government for not conceding a reasonable amendment.
I should like to quote from a reply that the Minister gave me on this subject, in which he said:
I give the assurance that wherever possible we shall give maximum choice, not only to the parents of normal children but to the parents of handicapped children, to ensure that they have a say about the schools to which their children go.
A quotation from Warnock clearly makes the case.
Parents almost always care for a child for a larger part of each day than any professional. They endure the disturbed nights and the disruption of social life which a handicapped child brings.
To try to prevent the parent of a handicapped child from having a choice is quite disgraceful in this day and age. I know that some difficulties will emerge as a result of amendment No. 123 being

carried, but those slight difficulties will be as nothing compared with the joy with which this success will be received by the handicapped. They have been denied this opportunity for far too long.
For example, if a parent knows his or her child well, whether the child is mentally or physically handicapped or deaf or blind, the parent will know which of those handicaps requires greatest attention. If the child is to spend some time in a hospital school, the parent is able to advise where the child should go when he comes out. The parent knows best. I appeal to the Government not to delay any further.
10.45 pm
The last all-party Act that passed through the House was the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970. It passed through the House without a Division. That would not have been passed if we had been kept waiting. We were told to wait for the Amelia Harris report. On this occasion we have the Warnock report. There is one part of it that we can implement now, and I urge the Minister to do so.

Mr. Robin Maxwell-Hyslop: I wish to remind my hon. Friend about the difference in function between the expert adviser and the taker of decisions. Much of the Bill is about the right of parents to participate in the taking of decisions. That applies as much in cases of handicapped children as it does anywhere else.
It is the function of educational psychologists and child psychiatrists to give expert advice. That does not, and ought not, to disenfranchise the parents of their responsibility and their participation in decisions that are made.

Mr. David Crouch: I intervene at this stage—

Dr. Boyson: Will my hon. Friend please make his point quickly?

Mr. Crouch: I shall not be hurried when I am talking about the disabled. There is not an hon. Member in the House who is not concerned about disabled children. I am extremely concerned to add my voice to everything that has been said, because I have received so much representation about the need for


parents to have a choice in the matter. I would be dismayed if my hon. Friend did not give way on this amendment.

Dr. Boyson: This is the second debate that we have had on a similar topic this evening—the first on the question of the election of governors, and this, which is concerned with the application of clauses 6, 7 and 8. At the present time, because of clause 9, they do not apply to nursery schools, special schools or children in need of special educational treatment.
On the question of the appeal system, raised by the hon. Member for Bolton, West (Mrs. Taylor), the distinction is that where a school normally recruits rising-fives, it will have the right to establish an appeals system where parents can appeal as though their children were joining that school at the age of 5, 11, or whatever.
I appreciate that there is some danger of confusion on the matter. It was discussed for a long time in Committee. We considered whether it was appropriate to amend the Bill in another place to make clear the limit of the extent to which, in practice, these provisions will apply to the rising-fives. As the hon. Member for Bolton, West has raised the matter again tonight, we shall consider what can be done, as there could be some confusion in interpretation.

Mrs. Ann Taylor: We accept the Minister's explanation. The confusion is not to do with what he has already said; it arises because of the anomaly that he is giving rights to certain parents of 4year-olds and denying them to others. That is what needs to be considered again.

Dr. Boyson: I appreciate that point. Quite honestly, we are considering the matter again. The clause makes a distinction between two sorts of parents as to the way in which they can appeal.
The amendment has been supported by hon. Members on both sides of the House. It was supported by my hon. Friend the Member for Eastleigh (Mr. Price), who told the tale of the girl who waited a year before she gave an answer. In this case I trust that it is not such a long-term answer. I trust that with the blood that runs in the spring there will be

a big flow. I hope that my hon. Friend will pass that information on to his friends outside the House. Similarly, I trust that on the question of what we can do about the extension of the rights of parents and of the information being given to parents with handicapped children, we do not need to wait for a year.
As I have already said, my right hon. and learned Friend hopes to make a statement to the House before the Easter Recess so that we can move further on the matter. There are greater problems with the exercise of parental choice, and many hon. Members accept that. Some of these children are in special schools, some in ordinary schools, some in independent schools and some in hospital schools, and some receive home tuition. Not only education advice but medical advice has to be given in many cases.
Having said all that, I believe that none of us differs on the principle that is involved. Parents of handicapped children should have as many rights as—if not more rights than—parents of normal children. It is merely a question of the right vehicle through which to achieve this. That is the only difference that exists between many of us this evening.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Exeter (Mr. Hannam) and the right hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent (Mr. Ashley) said, parents of handicapped children are more concerned than parents of normal children because they know that they must totally commit themselves to seeing that their children live their lives as advantageously as possible. We have to find the right vehicle through which to give them the choice of school and the right of appeal.
We realise that there is deep feeling on this matter throughout the House, My right hon. and learned Friend expects to make a statement on the Warnock report before the Easter Recess. He is the president of the association for handicapped children in his constituency. We consider that it would not be right to use this Bill to further involve parents in the education of handicapped children.

Mr. Hannam: Does not my hon. Friend agree that the Government's actions through this Bill are widening the gap between the parents of handicapped children and the parents of normal children? It is not a question of holding the


line until future legislation comes through. This Bill will actually widen the gap.

Dr. Boyson: I do not accept that. I know how strongly my hon. Friend the Member for Exeter feels about this, but the only reason why this clause was included was that we knew that we were moving towards doing something specific for handicapped children. If we were not in the process of doing that, clause 9 would not have been drafted as it has been drafted. We felt that it would be better to deal with handicapped children at a later time in a separate Bill.

Mr. Anthony Grant: I know that my hon. Friend does not lack compassion and that he and the Secretary of State are trying to do their best,—

Mr. Ashley: It is a very important matter.

Mr. Grant: —but if my hon. Friend is going to consider Warnock, why on earth does he not leave the parents of handicapped children in the same position as the parents of normal children?

Dr. Boyson: The Bill was drafted with children in the ordinary State schools in mind, and to extend the choice of parents. Similarly, the work that we are doing on the Warnock report will be used to extend parental preference and the information available to them. If we insist that every school within the State sector should issue its own prospectus—a card identity kit about what the school is achieving—it would seem that similar provisions should be made for the issue of such a prospectus by special schools inside and outside the State sector. My hon. Friend the Member for Exeter told me this week how parents often move around to find a school that offers what they want for their children. We accept completely that the parents of handicapped children would appreciate it if the provisions about the publication of information and effective parental involvement in schools could be extended to special schools. I assure the House that we shall take account of that in any projected Warnock legislation.
We have used the Bill to extend parental choice. We insist on schools issuing information to parents so that when they make a choice they can make a wise choice.

Mr. Colvin: My hon. Friend seems to be lost for words. I think that he would argue black was white if he were given the opportunity. In this instance the Warnock report is incidental. We are talking about social justice.

Dr. Boyson: In the light of the views that have been expressed, and bearing in mind the strength of feeling on this issue, we shall be prepared to reconsider our position before the Bill goes to another place if the amendment is withdrawn.
I am not trying to browbeat anybody. I would be blind if I could not see the strength of feeling that exists. If the amendment is withdrawn, we shall be prepared to consider the matter before it goes to another place to ascertain what we can do to give the same opportunity for information and parental choice to the parents of handicapped children.

Mrs. Ann Taylor: The Minister has acknowledged the strength of feeling in the House. However, I remind the House that the issue was discussed in Committee. The Minister was made well aware of the strength of feeling in the House and in organisations outside. It is not sufficient at this stage to defer a decision and to say that he will consider the matter once again. He has had a great deal of time to reconsider the issue. Many organisations have made representations. He has not taken notice of them, and it is extremely important that the House makes its views known.

Mr. Mark Carlisle: I confirm what my hon Friend said. The Government do not desire to react against the interests of the parents of handicapped children.

Mr. Alfred Morris: Why not accept the amendment?

Mr. Carlisle: I am advised that the issue is not as simple as it appears. Some of the provisions in the admission clauses would not happily fit special schools. My hon. Friend has said that in view of the clear expressions of opinion from both sides of the House—including those of the hon. Member for Eccles (Mr. Carter-Jones) and my hon. Friend the Member for Exeter (Mr. Hannam)—we are prepared to consider the matter again before the Bill goes to another place. We are prepared to do so. I ask my hon. Friends to accept that course.

Mr. Hannam: Mr. Hannam rose—

Mr. Carlisle: I still believe that the Warnock report should be considered generally. If my hon. Friends think that it will help, I give the undertaking to reconsider the information clause and to do anything else that is possible before the Bill goes to another place.

Mrs. Ann Taylor: The right hon. and learned Gentleman has given such assurances in the past. He had an opportunity to reconsider the matter before Report. These are not satisfactory responses. To

enable the House to come to a decision on amendment No. 123, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment proposed: No. 123, in page9, line 24, leave out form 'nursery schools' to end of line 25.—[Mr. Hannam.]

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 259, Noes 299.

Division No. 175]
AYES
[11 pm


Abse Leo
Dubs, Alfred
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald


Adams, Allen
Duffy, A. E. P.
Kerr, Russell


Allaun, Frank
Dunn, James A. (Liverpool, Kirkdale)
Kilroy-Silk, Robert


Alton, David
Eadie, Alex
Kinnock, Neil


Anderson, Donald
Eastham, Ken
Lamble, David


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Ellis, Raymond (NE Derbyshire)
Lamborn, Harry


Armstrong, Rt Hon Ernest
Ellis, Tom (Wrexham)
Lamond, James


Ashley, Rt Hon Jack
English, Michael
Leadbitter, Ted


Ashton Joe
Evans, Ioan (Aberdare)
Leighton, Ronald


Atkinson, Norman (H'gey, Tott'ham)
Evans, John (Newton)
Lestor, Miss Joan (Eton &amp; Slough)


Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)
Ewing, Harry
Lewis, Arthur (Newham North West)


Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (Heywood)
Faulds Andrew
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)


Beith, A.. J.
Fell, Anthony
Litherland, Robert


Benn, Rt Hon Anthony Wedgwood
Field, Frank
Lofthouse, Geoffrey


Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)
Flannery, Martin
Lyon, Alexander (York)


Bidwell, Sydney
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Lyons, Edward (Bradford West)


Booth, Rt Hon Albert
Foot, Rt Hon Michael
Mabon, Rt Hon Dr J. Dickson


Boothroyd, Miss Betty
Forrester, John
McDonald, Dr Oonagh


Bradley, Tom
Foster, Derek
McElhone, Frank


Bray Dr Jeremy
Foulkes, George
McKay, Allen (Penistone)


Brown Hugh D. (Provan)
Fraser, John (Lambeth, Norwood)
McKelvey, William


Brown, Robert C. (Newcastle W)
Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald
MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor


Brown, Ronald W. (Hackney S)
Freud, Clement
Maclennan, Robert


Brown, Ron (Edinburgh, Leith)
Garrett, John (Norwich S)
McMahon, Andrew


Buchan, Norman
Garrett, W. E. (Walisend)
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, Central)


Callaghan, Jim (Middleton &amp; P)
George, Bruce
McNally, Thomas


Campbell, Ian
Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John
McNamara, Kevin


Campbell-Savours, Dale
Ginsburg, David
McWilliam, John


Canavan, Dennis
Golding, John
Magee, Bryan


Cant, R. B.
Gourlay, Harry
Marks, Kenneth


Carmichael, Neil
Graham, Ted
Marshall, David (Gl'sgow, Shettles'n)


Carter-Jones, Lewis
Grant, George (Morpeth)
Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)


Cartwright John
Grant, John (Islington C)
Marshall, Jim (Leicester South)


Clark, Dr David (South Shields)
Grimond, Rt Hon J.
Martin, Michael (Gl'gow, Springb'rn)


Cocks, Rt Hon Michael (Bristol S)
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Maxton, John


Cohen, Stanley
Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin


Coleman, Donald
Hannam, John
Maynard, Miss Joan


Colvin, Michael
Harrison, Rt Hon Walter
Meacher, Michael


Concannon, Rt Hon J. D
Hart, Rt Hon Dame Judith
Mellish, Rt Hon Robert


Conlan, Bernard
Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy
Mikardo, Ian


Cook, Robin F.
Haynes, Frank
Millan, Rt Hon Bruce


Cowans, Harry
Healey, Rt Hon Denis
Miller, Dr M. S. (East Kilbride)


Craigen, J. M. (Glasgow, Maryhill)
Heffer, Eric S.
Mitchell, Austin (Grimsby)


Crowther, J. S.
Hogg, Norman (E Dunbartonshire)
Mitchell, R. C. (Soton, Itchen)


Cryer, Bob
Holland, Stuart (L'beth, Vauxhall)
Morris, Rt Hon Alfred (Wythenshawe)


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Home Robertson John
Morris, Rt Hon Charles (Openshaw)


Cunningham, George (Islington S)
Homewood, William
Morris, Rt Hon John (Aberavon)


Cunningham, Dr John (Whitehaven)
Hooley, Frank
Morton, George


Dalyell, Tam
Horam John
Moyle, Rt Hon Roland


Davidson, Arthur
Howells, Geraint
Mulley, Rt Hon Frederick


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Lianelll)
Huckfield, Les
Newens, Stanley


Davies, I for (Gower)
Hughes, Mark (Durham)
Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon


Davis, Clinton (Hackney Central)
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen North)
Ogden, Eric


Davis, Terry (B'rm'ham, Stechford)
Hughes, Roy (Newport)
O'Halloran, Michael


Deakins, Eric
Janner, Hon Greville
O'Neill, Martin


Dempsey, James
Jay, Rt Hon Douglas
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley


Dewar, Donald
John, Brynmor
Owen, Rt Hon Dr David


Dixon Donald
Johnson, Walter (Derby South)
Palmer, Arthur


Dobson, Frank
Johnston, Russell (Iverness)
Park, George


Dormand, Jack
Jones, Rt Hon Alec (Rhondda)
Parker, John


Douglas, Dick
Jones, Barry (East Flint)
Parry, Robert


Douglas-Mann, Bruce
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Pavitt, Laurie




Pendry, Tom
Silkin, Rt Hon John (Deptford)
Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.


Penhaligon, David
Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)


Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)
Silverman, Julius
Walker, Rt Hon Harold (Doncaster)


Prescott, John
Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)
Weetch, Ken


Price, Christopher (Lewisham West)
Smith, Rt Hon J. (North Lanarkshire)
Wellbeloved, James


Price, David (Eastleigh)
Snape, Peter
Welsh, Michael


Race, Reg
Soley, Clive
White, Frank R. (Bury &amp; Radcliffe)


Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn (Leeds South)
Spearing, Nigel
White, James (Glasgow, Pollok)


Richardson, Jo
Spriggs, Leslie
Whitehead, Phillip


Roberts, Allan (Bootle)
Stallard, A.. W.
Whitlock, William


Roberts, Ernest (Hackney North)
Steel, Rt Hon David
Wickenden, Keith


Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)
Stoddart, David
Wigley, Dafydd


Robertson, George
Stott, Roger
Willey, Rt Hon Frederick


Robinson, Geoffrey (Coventry NW)
Strang, Gavin
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)


Rodgers, Rt Hon William
Straw, Jack
Wilson, Rt Hon Sir Harold (Huyton)


Rooker, J. W.
Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley
Wilson, William (Coventry SE)


Roper, John
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton West)
Winnick, David


Ross, Ernest (Dundee west)
Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)
Woodall, Alec


Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)
Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)
Wrigglesworth, Ian


Rowlands, Ted
Thomas, Mike (Newcastle East)
Wright, Sheila


Ryman, John
Thomas, Dr Roger (Carmarthen)
Young, David (Bolton East)


Sandelson, Neville
Thorne, Stan (Preston South)



Sever, John
Tilley, John
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Sheerman, Barry
Tinn, James
Mr. Hugh McCartney and


Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert (A'ton-u-L)
Torney, Tom
Mr. Joseph Dean.


Short, Mrs Renée
Urwin, Rt Hon Tom





NOES


Adley, Robert
Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)


Aitken, Jonathan
Cockeram, Eric
Hampson, Dr Keith


Alexander, Richard
Cope, John
Haselhurst, Alan


Amery, Rt Hon Julian
Cormack, Patrick
Hastings, Stephen


Ancram, Michael
Corrie, John
Hawksley, Warren


Arnold, Tom
Costain, A.. P.
Heyhoe, Barney


Aspinwall, Jack
Cranborne, Viscount
Heddle, John


Atkins, Rt Hon H. (Spelthorne)
Critchley, Julian
Henderson, Barry


Atkins, Robert (Preston North)
Crouch, David
Haseltine, Rt Hon Michael


Atkinson, David (B'mouth, East)
Dean, Paul (North Somerset)
Hicks, Robert


Baker, Kenneth (St. Marylebone)
Dickens, Geoffrey
Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.


Baker, Nicholas (North Dorset)
Dorrell, Stephen
Hill, James


Banks, Robert
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Hogg, Hon Douglas (Grantham)


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Dover, Denshore
Holland, Philip (Carlton)


Bell, Sir Ronald
du Cann, Rt Hon Edward
Hooson, Tom


Bendall, Vivian
Dunn, Robert (Dartford)
Hordern, Peter


Benyon, Thomas (Abingdon)
Durant, Tony
Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey


Benyon, W. (Buckingham)
Eden, Rt Hon Sir John
Howell, Rt Hon David (Guildford)


Best, Keith
Edwards, Rt Hon N. (Pembroke)
Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)


Bevan, David Gilroy
Eggar, Timothy
Hunt, David (Wirral)


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Elliott, Sir William
Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)


Biggs-Davison, John
Emery, Peter
Hurd, Hon Douglas


Blackburn, John
Fairbairn, Nicholas
Irvine, Charles (Cheltenham)


Blaker, Peter
Fairgrieve, Russell
Jenkin, Rt Hon Patrick


Body, Richard
Faith, Mrs Sheila
Johnson Smith, Geoffrey


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Farr, John
Jopling, Rt Hon Michael


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Fenner, Mrs Peggy
Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith


Bowden, Andrew
Finsberg, Geoffrey
Kaberry, sir Donald


Boyson, Dr Rhodes
Fisher, Sir Nigel
Kershaw, Anthony


Bradford, Rev. R.
Fletcher, Alexander (Edinburgh N)
Kimball, Marcus


Braine, Sir Bernard
Fookes, Miss Janet
King, Rt Hon Tom


Bright Graham
Forman, Nigel
Kitson, Sir Timothy


Brinton Tim
Fowler, Rt Hon Norman
Knight, Mrs Jill


Brittan, Leon
Fox, Marcus 
Knox, David



Fraser, Rt Hon H. (Stafford &amp; St)
Lamont, Norman


Brocklebank-Fowler, Christopher
Fraser, Peter (South Angus)
Lang, Ian


Brotherton, Michael
Fry, Peter
Langford-Holt, Sir John


Brown, Michael (Brigg &amp; Sc'thorpe)
Galbraith, Hon T. G. D.
Latham, Michael


Browne, John (Winchester)
Gardiner George (Reigate)
Lawrence, Ivan


Bruce-Gardyne, John
Gardner, Edward (South Fylde)
Lawson, Nigel


Bryan, Sir Paul
Garel-Jones, Tristan
Lee, John


Buck, Antony
Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian
Le Merchant, Spencer


Budgen, Nick
Glyn, Dr Alan
Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark


Bulmer, Esmond
Goodhart, Philip
Lester, Jim (Beeston)


Burden, F. A..
Goodlad, Alastair
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)


Butcher, John
Gorst, John
Lloyd, Ian (Havant &amp; Waterloo)


Butler, Hon Adam
Gow, Ian
Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)


Cadbury, Jocelyn
Gower, Sir Raymond
Loveridge, John


Carlisle, John (Luton West)
Gray, Hamish
Luce, Richard


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Greenway, Harry
Lyell, Nicholas


Carlisle, Rt Hon Mark (Runcorn)
Grieve, Percy
McCrindle, Robert


Chalker, Mrs Lynda
Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St Edmunds)
McCusker, H.


Channon, Paul
Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)
Macfarlane, Neil


Chapman, Sydney
Grist, Ian
MacGregor, John


Clark, Hon Alan (Plymouth, Sutton)
Gummer, John Selwyn
MacKay, John (Argyll)


Clark, Sir William (Croydon South)
Hamilton, Hon Archie (Eps'm&amp;Ew'll)
McNair-Wilson, Michael (Newbury)







McNair-Wilson, Patrick (New Forest)
Patten, John (Oxford)
Stevens, Martin


McQuarrie, Albert
Patten, Geoffrey
Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)


Mattel, David
Pawsey, James
Stewart, John (East Renfrewshire)


Major, John
Percival, Sir Ian
Stokes, John


Marland, Paul
Peyton, Rt Hon John
Stradling Thomas, J.


Marlow, Tony
Pink, R. Bonner
Tapsell, peter


Marshall, Michael (Arundel)
Pollock, Alexander
Taylor, Robert (Croydon NW)


Marten, Neil (Banbury)
Porter, George
Tebbit, Norman


Mates, Michael
Powell, Rt Hon J. Enoch (S Down)
Temple-Morris, Peter


Mather, Carol
Prentice, Rt Hon Reg
Thomas, Rt Hon Peter (Hendon S)


Maude, Rt Hon Angus
Prior, Rt Hon James
Thompson, Donald


Mawby, Ray
Proctor, K. Harvey
Thorne, Neil (Ilford South)


Mawhinney, Dr Brian
Pym, Rt Hon Francis
Thornton, Malcolm


Mayhew, Patrick
Raison, Timothy
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Mellor, David
Rees, Peter (Dover and Deal)
Townsend, Cyril D. (Bexleyheath)


Meyer, Sir Anthony
Rees-Davies, W. R.
Trippier, David


Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove &amp; Redditch)
Renton, Tim
Trotter, Neville


Mills, Iain (Meriden)
Rhodes James, Robert
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Mills, Peter (West Devon)
Ridley, Hon Nicholas
Vaughan, Dr Gerard


Miscampbell, Norman
Ridsdale, Julian
Viggers, Peter


Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)
Rifkind, Malcolm
Wakeham, John


Moate, Roger
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)
Waldegrave, Hon William


Molyneaux, James
Ross, Wm. (Londonderry)
Walker, Bill (Perth &amp; E Perthshire)


Monro, Hector
Royle, Sir Anthony
Waller, Gary


Montgomery, Fergus
Sainsbury, Hon Timotny
Walters, Dennis


Moore, John
St. John Stevas, Rt Hon Norman
Ward, John


Morris, Michael (Northampton, Sth)
Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)
Warren, Kenneth


Morrison, Hon Charles (Devizes)
Shelton, William (Streatham)
Watson, John


Morrison, Hon Peter (City of Chester)
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Mudd, David
Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge-Br'hills)
Wells, Bowen (Hert'rd &amp; Stev'nage)


Murphy, Christopher
Shersby, Michael
Wheeler, John


Myles, David
Silvester, Fred
Whitelaw, Rt Hon William


Neale, Gerrard
Sims, Roger
Whitney, Raymond


Needham, Richard
Skeet, T. H. H.
Wiggin, Jerry


Nelson, Anthony
Smith, Dudley (War, and Leam'ton)
Wilkinson, John


Neubert, Michael
Speed, Keith
Williams, Delwyn (Montgomery)


Newton, Tony
Speller, Tony
Winterton, Nicholas


Nott, Rt Hon John
Spence, John
Wolfson, Mark


Onslow, Cranley
Spicer, Jim (West Dorset)
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Page, John (Harrow, West)
Sproat, Iain
Younger, Rt Hon George


Page, Rt Hon Sir R. Graham
Squire, Robin



Page, Richard (SW Hertfordshire)
Stainton, Keith
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Parkinson, Cecil
Stanbrook, Ivor
Mr. David Waddington and


Parris, Matthew
Stanley, John
Mr. Peter Brooke.


Patten, Christopher (Bath)
Steen, Anthony

Question accordingly negatived.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I am now required to put the Questions on all Government amendments until the end of schedule 3—that is amendments Nos. 17 to 27, inclusive. Does any hon. Member wish to divide on any of those amendments?

Clause 10

DETERMINATION OF SCHOOL TO BE NAMED IN ORDER

Amendment made: No. 17, in page 10, line 12, after 'application', insert
'mentioned in paragraph (a) above or is offered a place at a school at which the local education authority agree to provide education for him in response to the application mentioned in paragraph (b) above.'.—[Mr. Mark Carlisle.]

Clause 11

AMENDMENT OF ORDER

Amendment made: No. 18, in page 11, line 7, after 'application', insert

'mentioned in paragraph (a) above or is offered a place at a school at which the local education authority agree to provide education for him in response to the application mentioned in paragraph (b) above.'.—[Mr. Mark Carlisle.]

Clause 12

ESTABLISHMENT, DISCONTINUANCE AND ALTERATION OF SCHOOLS BY LOCAL EDUCATION AUTHORITIES

Amendments made: No. 19, in page 11, line 37, leave out 'or'.

No. 20, in page 11, line 40, at end insert

'or

(e) to cease to maintain a nursery school established by them or a former authority.'.

No. 21, in page 12, line 1 after 'proposals', insert
'shall be accompanied by a statement of the effect of subsection (3) below and'.

No. 22, in page 12, line 33, leave out from 'State' to end of line 39 and insert—
'(a) if he gives notice to that effect to the local education authority within two months after the submission to him of the published;


or
(b) if objections have been made as mentioned in subsection (3) above and all objections so made have not been withdrawn as mentioned in that subsection.'.

No. 23, in page 12, line 45, leave out from 'State' to end of line 7 on page 13 and insert
'the local education authority shall determine whether the proposals should be implemented and the authority shall make that determination not later than four months after the submission of the proposals to the Secretary of State.'.

No. 24, in page 13, linel3, at end insert 'and'.

No. 25, in page 13, line 16, leave out paragraph (c).

Clause 13

ESTABLISHMENT AND ALTERATION OF VOLUNTARY SCHOOLS

Amendments made: No. 26, in page 13, line 40, at end insert:
'taking the reference to subsection (3) of that section as a reference to subsection (3) below'.

No. 27, in page 14, line 6, after 'made', insert:
'and the local education authority by whom the school is, or is to be, maintained'.—[Mr. Mark Carlisle.]

Clause 17

ASSISTED PLACES AT INDEPENDENT SCHOOLS

Mr. Kinnock: I beg to move amendment No. 111, in page 17, line 13, after 'whereby', insert:
'with the consent of the local education authority in whose area the school is situated.'.
You have gone to fast for me, Mr. Deputy Speaker. However, I can scarcely be blamed, because I have a charming conversation partner.
We have come to the infamous clause 17. It refers to the assisted places scheme. The amendment is geared to the hope that the Government will relent at this late date, and will include consultation with the local education authorities as a prerequisite to the introduction of that scheme in any local authority area. One way to mitigate and rationalise the effect of the assisted places scheme is to include a requirement that local education authorities give their consent before any school participates in the scheme.
That is necessary as a result of the loathing with which that scheme is regarded, not just by the educational trade unions, the Society of Education Officers, head teachers and just about every commentator on the scheme, journalistic or academic, but by some hon. Gentlemen who have in the past demonstrated their affection for and trust in the maintained system of education. In that respect, if in no other, they are at severe odds with their leadership. After considering the further arguments, and, perhaps, taking this opportunity to further display their views, I hope that those hon. Gentlemen will join us in the Lobby.
11.15 pm
The view is put forward by the Secretary of State that the assisted places scheme is not the wretched enemy of the maintained system that we have described, but a kind of educational Quasimodo. However misshapen and misbegotten the proposal, it is there to engage in acts of mercy and rescue the odd, inspired urchin, drag him out of the gutter and give him all the advantages, privileges and assistance of an education geared to academic ability. The possibility of that occurring is less than nil. I believe that in the whole series of amendments that we have tabled on local education authorities, selection and parental income, we shall conclusively demonstrate that.
Since the Second Reading and the long hours in Committee spent considering this part of the Bill, the scheme has been effectively bisected. Even the Secretary of State now acknowledges that the prospect of recruiting 100,000 children to be beneficiaries—if that is the proper word—does not exist, and that the figure is more appropriately 50,000. We believe that the explanation is more likely to be found in the low rate of application than in the Secretary of State's seeing sense or the Cabinet, in its second round of cuts, recognising the need for not further offending the people of Britain by spending a ridiculous £55 million on that unwanted and unwarranted scheme.
Local education authorities have, without equivocation, shown, at the very least, suspicion, and, at the most, repeated and merciless criticism of the scheme. The reason is obvious. They know that the children on whom schools depend and for whom schools provide—the


brightest children, the academically most able—will be creamed off by the scheme in many areas of the country where there is an incidence of independent schools that will participate in the scheme.
Local education authorities, by no means all of one political persuasion, are proud of their maintained schools. They recognise the need for further development of those schools. They also recognise that the most academically able pupils attract and retain able staff at those schools and act as an inspiration for their peers. It did not take Professor Rutter to demonstrate the importance of those children to the educational welfare of a school. Anyone acquainted with education has recognised that for a long period. The proposals are a direct threat to the continuity of that usefulness and of the advantage that those children derive from their schools.
As the National Association of Head Teachers and other bodies have pointed out, the group that the Secretary of State is hoping to attract into the assisted places schools is the small percentage who can be identified as being academically most able—those who demonstrate that ability by getting several high grade passes at A-level.
At a time of falling roll numbers and in areas where there is a high incidence of assisted places on offer, there is a possibility that the proportion of pupils from that highest academic ability range that will be taken out of the maintained sector and put into the assisted places schools will be so significant as dramatically to affect the quality of education provided and the character of the maintained schools from which those children come. I do not think that the statistical propositions of those directly interested in these matters have been seriously contested.
The possibility exists that if the scheme were fully implemented, had it catered eventually for 100,000 of the highest academic ability children in this country they would have constituted about one-third of the children in the whole school system. The result would have been an enormous and greatly damaging loss to the maintained system and the communities relying on the schools within that system.
We have come to expect that the Secretary of State will not be terribly disturbed by that distortion. He told the annual dinner of the Manchester grammar school on 23 January that the private school sector
provides the maintained sector with a standard of comparison of performance as well as having traditional excellence in various fields, from which the maintained sector could usefully draw.
That has been interpreted correctly throughout the maintained system as a calculated insult and a desertion of duty by the man whose ultimate responsibility is for the maintained sector. He is supposed to be the guardian of its interests in the Cabinet. Because the overwhelming majority of children in this country attend schools in the maintained sector, he should at least be relied upon not to demoralise that sector by the use of such phrases and assessments of relative values.
The Secretary of State is actually contriving to tell the maintained sector that it is second best; that the children attending schools in that sector and the teachers working within it are engaged in and dependent upon a second-rate system. We can put no other interpretation on those words. They must have been carefully chosen.
If the Secretary of State for Wales wishes to examine a press release put out by the Department of Education and Science he will find much more in the same vein—that this provides the maintained sector with a standard of comparison of performance. It does not, and it must not. The maintained sector can judge for itself. It can be examined by Her Majesty's inspectors and be exposed to the view of the whole country—indeed, the whole world. It does not need to depend on or borrow its energy from comparisons with the private sector. It is not in competition with the private sector, although no doubt the Secretary of State would like it to be, through the assisted places scheme.

Mr. Mark Carlisle: Why not?

Mr. Kinnock: The Secretary of State asks "Why not?" Does he really think that the education system of this country would benefit from a race for what he describes and defines as "excellence" between the private and maintained sectors? What child would be advantaged by that? How would teacher morale be raised? Who would benefit? No one at all. But


it is apparent that the Secretary of State has espoused such ideas. That is rather unexpected. I thought that such ideas belonged to a darker and more sinister and backward section of the Conservative Party than the one from which he is supposed to have come.
The Secretary of State appears to be infected by the company that he keeps. I am the last one to preach guilt by association, but when he talks about traditional excellence in various fields that the maintained sector should apparently seek to emulate, that is an insult to the maintained sector schools and to the system responsible for that sector.

Mr. Carlisle: The hon. Gentleman is waxing eloquent, but let us consider what he is saying. Surely he accepts that some of the ex-direct grant schools had high academic standards. What on earth is wrong in saying that they provide a standard of comparison against which we can check the ability of the maintained sector? That is not an insult to the maintained sector.

Mr. Spearing: It is.

Mr. Carlisle: It is not. Alongside the maintained sector there is another, and the fact that there are two gives us the opportunity to check one against the other. That is all that I was saying, and it seems reasonable and sensible.

Mr. Kinnock: In that case, I suppose that we should be grateful that the right hon. and learned Gentleman is not Secretary of State for Social Services, since on the basis of the sort of comparisons that he makes we would be talking about second-rate health sector treatment and second-rate operations and asking the public sector of medicine to compare itself in terms of excellence of treatment with the private sector.
It is a damned cheek and an insult for the Secretary of State to talk about the superiority of the private sector. Our examination system is surely enough of a means of making a judgment on the academic performance of schools in whatever sector. Whether that system is an acceptable or wise way of judging the performance of individuals is another matter, but why should the Secretary of State seek, through the assisted places scheme or inane speeches like the one that he made in Manchester, to impose

yet another criterion on a maintained sector that is consistently under attack and so seek to uproot the confidence in that sector?
I hope that the right hon. and learned Gentleman will either apologise for making that sort of attack or will make it even more publicly and deliberately, so that the people of this country can properly evaluate the sort of person who is responsible for the maintained sector of education.
The assisted places scheme and all that goes with it is an insult to the maintained sector. The elementary presumption of the scheme is that there are schools that can do that which the maintained sector cannot do. I can acquit the ignoramuses on the Conservative Back Benches on the basis of their ignorance, but the Secretary of State cannot be acquitted, because he is as familiar as anyone with the inspectors' reports and the education statistics.
The statistics demonstrate that for the most academically able children the maintained system provides at least as well as does any other system. Indeed, if there are any children who are not being as well served by the maintained sector as we should like, they are not the high fliers or the lowest performers but the children in between. That is the conclusion reached by several reports, including the reports of the Department's inspectors, produced at almost weekly intervals on all sorts of testing bases.
The presumption in the assisted places scheme, that there is a haven or refuge for children of such high ability that they are not being served by the maintained system, is demonstrable nonsense.
The vein running through the whole proposition is that "bought is best"—that in order for something to be excellent, admirable and superior, a price tag must be attached. I say, without sentimentality, that there is a truth held to be self-evident on the Opposition side and by some individual Conservative Members that the worth of an education system, a health system or any caring system, or system of inspiration in a modern State, is not demonstrated by the price tag but by the provision made.
11.30 pm
In order to hold to that, we have to disagree profoundly with the right hon. and learned Gentleman and oppose by every means his assisted places scheme.


We do not believe, and we shall not concede, nor shall we assist people into the idea of thinking, that there must be a label, a price tag, a purchase price, attached to something to give it real worth. Certainly, in the case of educational provision and opportunity it would be the vilest kind of attack on our system of education to teach parents and teachers, and pupils—because they recognise and understand these debates upon these matters—that unless people qualify for the purchase system of education they are somehow being betrayed, sold short or involved in a second-rate system.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman shakes his head. He will have to disprove the words that he uttered in Manchester, and he will have to wipe this clause out of the Bill if he seeks to demonstrate that that is not his attitude towards the maintained system.
In their attitudes—we heard it today again in the debate on the new clause on nursery education, and we have heard it otherwise—there is a well-developed Tory talent for giving general praise to the publicly provided services and then either denying the means for those services to be operated effectively or importing or supporting an alternative system, which is held up as a model of excellence.
In his approach to these matters, the right hon. and learned Gentleman reminds me greatly of the Arab sheikh who became converted to Catholicism and kept a mermaid for Fridays. Disraeli's phrase about organised hypocrisy is very true, even in 1980, a century or more after he uttered it. It is demonstrated yet again through the means of the assisted places scheme.
We had extensive opportunity in Committee for giving evidence from various bodies—some of a political persuasion and some of absolutely no political persuasion—in opposition to this scheme. I do not want to prolong the proceedings, because I realise that hon. Members on both sides of the Hosue wish to speak on this matter, and some of them have not had a previous opportunity to do so. However, there is one question that I want to raise with the Minister about his conduct of the assisted places scheme.
When the Department sent out the circular letter on 6 December to the Governing bodies of direct grant grammar schools and the proprietors of independent schools and sent a covering note to the chief education officers of the local education authorities, the Minister said specifically in that letter that
It would be appreciated if the form
—that is, the form demonstrating interest in participating the scheme—
could be returned quickly, and in any case, not later than 31 January 1980.
In the first week of February we were told by the Under-Secretary that the forms were still coming in. I presume that the forms are still coming in. We would be interested to hear how many additions there have been to the 371 that had arrived by the first week in February, and how long the right hon. and learned Gentleman intends to go on extending the closing date.
I wish that the right hon. and learned Gentleman were organising the football pools. because that would mean that we would all be winners. We could post our coupons on the Monday after the Saturday on which the games took place. It was said to be not later than 31 January. We are already in the middle of February and there is no sign of the guillotine being slammed down on the assisted places scheme in the way in which it has been slammed down on the House of Commons.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman, and his hon. Friends, throughout the whole of the debates on the Bill have applauded the idea of giving more and more authority, discretion and judgment to local education authorities. They say that that is a central theme of Tory education policy, of local government policy and of the Bill. There are various eccentricities to that theme, as we have seen demonstrated in other debates in the House.
On this occasion, if the right hon. and learned Gentleman has confidence in the assisted places scheme, if he believes that it is a token of excellence and a model of inspiration that provides for poor children—I note that he has stopped using that phrase now—or less affluent children with the opportunity to gain an academic education—though we have yet to hear a definition of what he means by


"academic"—the least he can do is to bring together his two principles of pride in the private sector of education and of confidence in the judgment of the local education authorities and insert at the beginning of clause 17 the words in our amendment. By marrying those two principles, at least he will ensure that the provision of assisted places does not distort, disrupt or cream off the talent from the maintained sector of education where it is well served and continues to be needed.

Mr. Robert Hicks: My contribution to the debate will be short. It was not an easy decision for me, on Second Reading, to withdraw my support from the Government. I did so for two reasons. First, I felt apprehensive about the whole question of school transport and, secondly, I am opposed to the introduction of this concept of assisted school places at this time.
No one in 1975 voted with more conviction and enthusiasm than I did when we opposed the decision of the then Labour Government to phase out the direct-grant schools, but, as often happens, a party in opposition tends to make instant judgments, which take no account of the circumstances that may exist when that party returns to political office.
I have three basic objections to the introduction of this scheme. First, as the hon. Member for Bedwellty (Mr. Kinnock) said, it makes an assumption that schools in the private sector have something to offer that schools in the maintained sector have not. The great majority of children of secondary school age attend schools in the maintained sector. I believe that all Governments, whether they be of the Left or of the Right have an obligation to place the maximum resources available to the Department of Education and Science into the maintained sector.
I am a product of a grammar school. My daughter attends the local comprehensive school in Liskeard. Like the majority of parents—indeed, all parents—of children who attend that comprehensive school, I want it to offer the best education to our children. Therefore, even if we accept the assumption that schools in the private sector can offer something

that schools in the maintained sector cannot, I object to the creaming-off process.
I do not think that my area will be able to take advantage of the scheme, because there is no private sector school within daily travelling distance. But that is irrelevant to my basic argument. I am doubtful about a situation that assumes that because some schools are in the private sector they can offer greater facilities and greater opportunities for more academically gifted children. I believe that we on the Government Benches, particularly, have an obligation, at a time when savings are being made in the overall level of public expenditure—the Department of Education and Science is sadly not exempt—to be seen putting as well as wishing, all available resources into the maintained sector.
I have the greatest respect for my right hon. and learned Friend, but it is politically unwise at this time to be carrying out this measure. We are making savings and attracting a certain amount of political unpopularity while pumping in money, albeit indirectly, through the parents, into the private sector. I recall that the Conservative Government in 1971 put through the Education (Milk) Act, involving the abolition of school milk. The savings at that time were £9 million. Frankly, with the benefit of hindsight, it was not worth the political "aggro" and the political flak that we suffered as a consequence of going through with that measure.
I must put on record my view. I am opposed to the introduction of this scheme at this time. It is politically misguided. Even at this late hour, I ask my right hon. and learned Friend and my hon. Friends on the Front Bench to reconsider their attitude in respect of the two clauses dealing with the assisted school places scheme. I believe that it does not matter whether the figure is £55 million, over the full period, or half that figure. It is totally wrong that a party that believes in providing maximum opportunity especially within the maintained sector, should be seen to be going directly against that trend in the current economic climate. It is also wrong educationally.

Mr. Christopher Price: I shall speak only briefly because I understand that there are Conservative Members who


wish to intervene. The speech of the hon. Member for Bodmin (Mr. Hicks) is, I believe, the authentic voice of the Conservative Party—far more so than the measure brought forward by the Front Bench.
When the Second Reading of this Bill takes place in the other place, where there are five pre-1964 Secretaries of State and Ministers of Education from the Conservative Party, that fact will be brought home to the Government. The tone of the debate will be much more in tune with the remarks of the hon. Member for Bodmin than with the arguments that we have heard from the Government Front Bench.
By introducing the assisted places scheme, the Government are going against the whole educational, legislative tradition that has existed in this country since the 1870 Act when compulsory education was introduced. Clause 1(1) of the Education Act 1944 enjoins, as a duty, on the Secretary of State
to promote the education of the people of England and Wales…and to secure the effective execution by local authorities, under his control and direction, of the national policy for providing a varied and comprehensive educational service in every area.
11.45 pm
When our predecessors in 1944 insisted that it was the Minister's duty to introduce the national policy they meant just that—the national policy by local education authorities under his control and direction. On every single previous occasion when independent schools have been funded with public money, it has been for one purpose and one purpose only—to fill in gaps in local provision, which local authorities have not been able to fill with their own resources, and when local authorities have themselves requested that independent schools should be used for this purpose.
Every report since this question has been considered, beginning with the interim report of the Fleming committee in 1942, has made it absolutely clear that independent schools, funded with any sort of public funds at all, should be used only when local authorities request that that facility should be made available because, usually temporarily, their own facilities are not sufficient.
For the first time the Secretary of State is turning the whole proposition on

its head. For the first time he is completely and blatantly eroding the basic principle of the 1944 Act, that where a school is grant-aided with public funds, fee paying in that school should be illegal. That is what the 1944 Act stated. Admittedly, the direct grant system, because the Fleming committee could not agree, was temporarily removed from that system, but that was the principle of the 1944 Act. The further principle was that if independent schools were to be used to supplement county and voluntary schools, the only conditions under which they could be used were those in which local provision was not sufficient.
We have not the full details of the system under which the Secretary of State is to use the provision, but we know that the assisted places scheme is unique in education finance. As the right hon. and learned Gentleman knows, every other penny that goes into education has to be funded through the rate support grant so that local authorities can use it. This is the only feature of the school system where the right hon. and learned Gentleman is taking powers, as it were, to override local wishes.
So far from using the old principle that local authorities should, as it were, go to the Minister and request help, the Minister has threatened to use this principle actually to penalise local authorities. Whereas a local authority had facilities, under the freedom that was given to it in the Education (No. 1) Act, to plan its system, to abolish the 11-plus and to make a natural progression from primary to secondary school, the threat that the right hon. and learned Gentleman is using, in places such as Sheffield and London, is to reimpose an 11-plus system on those cities and completely distort not only the secondary education but the primary education.

Mr. Tristan Garel-Jones: Would I be right in understanding, from what the hon. Gentleman is saying—I should be interested also to hear the hon. Member for Bedwellty (Mr. Kinnock) on this—that if the assisted places scheme were to include a provision whereby local education authorities had a voice in whether such a place were to be given, the hon. Gentleman would regard that—as do some of its present opponents, such as the headmaster of Westminster School—as being a useful bridge between the


private and the maintained sector, and would support the scheme?

Mr. Price: I would not go that far. If the local authorities that are charged with the responsibility of organising education in their areas have the right to be consulted—which they do not have under the Bill—and have the right, as laid down in the amendment, of saying "No, we prefer not to have assisted places schools in our area, whatever happens in other areas", it would go a long way towards mitigating the evil effects of the scheme.
I do not wish to pursue that matter further, as I know that the hon. and learned Member for Blackpool, North (Mr. Miscampbell) and others wish to intervene. If the Secretary of State insists on putting the assisted places scheme forward as penal sanction against local education authorities that wish, with the full consent of their electorate, to run a comprehensive scheme without an 11-plus, he will make political problems for himself over the next few years of which he knows not. It is not my duty to warn him of that; it is the duty of those behind him. He is making not only an appalling administrative mistake, going against the whole historical tradition of the development of education in this country, but the worst political mistake ever made by the Conservative Party.

Mr. Norman Miscampbell: I have never before followed an hon. Member who has encouraged you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to call me. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman thinks that I may make a speech that supports some of the views that he has expressed.
I do not suppose that any authorities that are opposed in principle to their ablest children being taken away from their comprehensive schools are any more comforted than I am by the half-abandonment of the scheme that we have seen over the past few days. My objection to the scheme is not only that ablest children would be taken away, but that in many cases it would take away the most concerned families, who have a great part to play in the schools that their children attend.
In the speeches from the Treasury Bench before the scheme was truncated I sensed a feeling that it could be explained by saying that it was a modest proposal of

which too much notice should not be taken. That is entirely wrong. It is a matter of principle. It makes no difference to me whether we spend £55 million or £25 million. Indeed, £1 million would be too much. It is wrong in principle.
Over the past week or so I have met no less enthusiasm to explain that it is now an even more modest scheme. It appears rather like the Victorian parlour maid who explained away the arrival of her illegitimate child by saying "It is only little". That is not an adequate reason for us to ignore what is a matter of considerable principle.
I turn to one or two technical matters before I come to the broader issues. Local authorities must be deeply interested in first, the argument that the scheme would not cost them very much and would not take anything away from the maintained system. That argument has been put forward on two bases. One argument—which I find great difficulty in understanding—is that, somehow, money that is used for private purposes is not money that is taken away from the maintained schools. In my book, money that is available to the Department of Education and Science is available for education.
The second argument is even less reputable, namely, that all that we are doing is to spend about the same amount on the assisted places scheme as we spend to educate a child in the maintained system. That is economic nonsense. The first child in any comprehensive school will probably cost £1 million. The meridian child certainly costs £500 to £600. The marginal child—and there can be no more marginal child than the one that is being bought out—costs virtually nothing. It costs the gas and the Bunsen-burner, a few extra books and perhaps another desk.
On the other hand, and conversely, the child who is sent to the private school is equally marginal—otherwise we would not have had the scheme—as is the cost to the private school. It has to provide little else than the extra books and the place. Therefore, the true cost of this scheme is almost every penny in every pound that is spent, and it is wrong to pretend otherwise.
The difficulty is that this is public money being used for private purposes. I should have thought that many of my


hon. Friends would pause before enthusiastically supporting that proposition. Of course, there are circumstances in which this is perfectly proper, such as extreme talent in music. There are plenty of circumstances in which this scheme can be used. But the use of money in order to provide one of the prime duties of the Department of State seems to me to be unacceptable.

Mr. R. B. Cant: Will the hon. and learned Gentleman take courage from the fact that on Staffordshire county council, of which I am a member, one of the toughest Tory operators, who is chairman of the education committee, has said publicly that he is totally opposed to this scheme? If the Government have £50 million to spare, he can apply that quite successfully to the development of micro-electronics education, or anything else in the public sector.

Mr. Miscampbell: I need no encouragement. Blackpool went comprehensive with an overwhelming Tory majority and I defy anyone to show that we have attained any fewer A-levels than anyone else, or that there has been any less success. The fact is that throughout the town, from one end of the constituencies to the other, every headmaster and headmistress in the maintained sector is totally opposed to what we are doing. We should pay attention to what has been said.
I want to turn for a moment to what may happen if the scheme is terminated, because I think that it has an educational as well as a political overtone. Let us consider who will go into the scheme. We all read in the newspapers last week about what will happen at the top end of the scale. Of course, those people will get only £100 or so, although why they should is a little difficult to understand. A family with two children and an income of £8,000 a year, as well as a modest mortgage, will be in the £10,000 bracket [Interruption.] Well, a £10,000 mortgage will cost about £1,500 a year. They are very high brackets.
The whole House can be indebted to the Department for its identification in this century of those who in the last century were soon to be people who were hard-up but who had done something to help themselves, and who were identified by the Victorian philanthropists as

deserving causes. That having been said, the real bulk of the money will go to those at the bottom end of the scale.
12 midnight
I shall not go into the arguments about how much in reality those receiving grant will have to pay, but we must face the fact that we have an Opposition who have declared that they will terminate the scheme at the end of the educational year in which they achieve power.
I think that that is disgraceful. Educationally, the only respectable thing to do would be to phase it out. But one has to face reality, and that is not what we are arguing about at present. Lamentable though it is, there may well be an opportunity for the Opposition to do that.
If that happens—and one would need to be a believer in Henry Ford's view that all history was bunk to say that it never will—what will happen to these children? Will the schools that take them on now have to put them out, and will they have a disrupted education? Perhaps the Minister can help me here. When these schools volunteered to take these children, did we ask whether they would keep them if, when they had20 or 30 of them in the school, it meant that it would cost the school £30,000 to finish off their education?
I want to turn for a moment to the attitude of local education authorities. They are entitled to resent being told in the Bill that they have no say in this scheme when we as a party say, strongly and persistently, that it is the right of LEAs to choose the kind of education that they want for their districts. That is bound to cause resentment, and it has.
Above all, what the LEAs have a right to be concerned about is the attitude—as hinted at by my hon. Friend the Member for Bodmin (Mr. Hicks)—that we are displaying towards the maintained system. Before the change we thought that the problem of providing a more academic education had been identified. As many as 100,000 children, according to the Department, were thought worthy of an independent chance. Now, at a stroke, that number is reduced to 50,000. I would like to know whether the Minister has any proposal for dealing with the 50,000 that have been removed overnight. If there is a scheme within the maintained


system to give these children a chance by providing assisted places there will be no opposition from me, indeed, the Minister will have my support. But if there is such a scheme, and if it is right for the 50,000 that have been removed over the last fortnight to be given a chance, why is it not right for the whole 100,000?
I do not think that anyone can be other than perturbed at the wording and attitude disclosed by the clause. I do not disagree with the argument that there may be an advantage in going to several private schools, but that is not the question. If that is the position it is the first duty of the Government and the Department to make sure that it is changed as quickly as possible. It is not a solution increasingly to buy our way out of it over the years.
We are embarking on a policy of despair. We are saying that we shall not be able to match the best. It is an option for the second-rate. The clause is no more than a vote of no confidence in the maintained system. I have no intention of casting such a vote.

Mr. Beith: For not the first time in today's proceedings the most telling criticisms of what the Government propose to do have come from the Conservative Benches. We have heard two speeches that have been not only courageous but thorough and effective in their treatment of the Government's proposals. The content of those two speeches reflects to a considerable degree a view that I have found among leaders of education authorities in many parts of the country, including many Conservatives. That is true of many Conservatives in the county in which my constituency is contained, and it is true of the areas represented by those on the Conservative Benches who have so courageously criticised the Government. It is true of many areas.
The view that has seized the Government and led them to embark on the scheme is not regarded with much enthusiasm by some of their representatives in local government, who have committed their activity to the maintenance of as good a State education system as they can possibly produce. Working for many years on local education authorities enables those of a different political persuasion to share a commitment to achieve that objective. Many

Conservatives have committed themselves to it, as well as Liberals and Socialists. There are those of all political persuasions in local government who are amazed by what the Government propose to do.
At a time when local government is being told that it cannot have money to spend on basic necessities and on improving its service, it is extraordinary that money can mysteriously be found to invest in the Government's scheme. We must assume that the Government have made the decision to lower the standard of the public sector and to buy out a small number of people upon whom the country will depend in future to educate them in the private sector. That assumption is as offensive to Conservative local government leaders as it is to Liberals and Socialists.
It is only right that local education authority leaders should be consulted on the practical application of the scheme in their areas. They are faced with extraordinary difficulties because of the way in which the Government have conceived the scheme. The Secretary of State and the Under-Secretary of State speak with enthusiasm of the replies that they have received to their circular from schools that wish to take part in the scheme. They do not tell us how many of the schools from which they have received replies are second-rate, third-rate and even fourth-rate. They talk as if every application has been received from a school that may be regarded as the pinnacle of the private education pyramid. Local education authorities that are trying hard to better the standards that exist in some quarters of the public sector are, not surprisingly, offended by the suggestion that their schools are inferior to some of the schools that are operating in the private sector.
Some Conservative Members who want to go along with the scheme may not realise that the Government do not propose that there should be any initial inspection by Her Majesty's inspectors of the schools to which public finance is to be devoted. It is merely upon a reply to a form that the Minister will assess whether it is the sort of school to which children of the highest academic standard must be diverted from the maintained education system. It is amazing that they should accept with any willingness the diverting of public funds to parts of


the private education sector which have standards far below those of many parts of the State education system.
Some of the speeches of Ministers have suggested that the scheme is a device to take a few children into the best and most expensive schools—the ones with the greatest academic prestige. There is nothing in the arrangements that they have made so far to conduct the scheme that suggests that even that objective can be met. The absence of any provisions for inspection before schools are approved is bound to underline that feeling.
The hon. and learned Member for Blackpool, North (Mr. Miscampbell) referred to the high income bracket which would still enable people to get some financial benefit from the scheme. Local education authority leaders are bound to be puzzled when the Government tell them that the only people that they need to help with the cost of school meals and school transport are those who are in receipt of family income supplement and supplementary benefit.
If a man earns £66 or £67 a week the Government do not believe it necessary for the local education authority to give him any assistance. However, people with income levels far above that are thought of as appropriate for assistance by central Government not only with school meals and transport but with school fees, once their children are plucked out of the State system and sent to the private education system.
Those few children will be entitled to assistance with the additional cost of uniforms and out-of-school activities. There will be all kinds of assistance for parents with incomes far higher than those for whom basic assistance with schools meals and transport are denied under other provisions of this Bill.

Mr. Kinnock: The information that we have so far is that remission will be against the school fees and that no provision will be made for expenses other than the fees. The hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) might care to reflect whether the remissions that have been advertised in the Press are the sums that families, whatever their incomes, will be asked to meet—or will there be hundreds of pounds on top of

that to help children get to a school and stay there conforming to the requirements of school uniforms and the rest?

Mr. Beith: It is inevitable that unless substantial provision over and above the remissions is made—and I understood from discussion in Committee that the Government wanted to do this—children who take part in the assisted places scheme may find themselves at a great disadvantage compared to other children at the same school, particularly if they go to a school at which the remainder of the children come from rich families.
If, however, the Government find ways of meeting those additional costs, those few children will be at a great advantage compared to children whose parents have lower incomes and who are not even provided with basic help with meals and transport at State schools. Either way the local education authority has a deep and genuine interest in the anomalies thereby created.
I think that the Government have now had time to discover what an unenthusiastic reception the assisted places scheme has received from their friends and supporters, let alone from their opponents. I am totally depressed by the inability of the Government Front Bench to recognise that we are engaged in a scheme that could do profound damage to the State education system. They give no other impression than that they regard that system as second best—one that is bound to decline and from which they must now rescue a very small number of children.

Mr. John Page: I leap to my feet to prevent the Secretary of State being bullied by a lot of toughs from different parts of the playground. I thought that the speeches in this debate were to be of a high intellectual level. They have not been. Hon. Members have been throwing verbal stones at someone they seem to think cannot defend himself, but they underestimate the qualities of my right hon. and learned Friend.
I listened to all the speeches tonight except when I was having a short snooze during the opening speech, and as far as I recall parental choice and the choice of the children were never mentioned by one spokesman opposing or supporting the amendment. Parental choice and child


choice figured in the Tory Party manifesto and I am delighted to see that choice provided for in the Bill.
The people of Harrow and Middlesex, especially those who are not so well off, look forward to having the opportunity of obtaining places in the private schools that have traditionally been used by the children of Harrow and elsewhere in the past 100 years. Long may it remain so.

Mr. Spearing: First, I commend the hon. Member for Harrow, West (Mr. Page) on the high intellectual calibre of his speech. Coming from Harrow, it is appropriate that he should be an apologist for the private sector. Of course, Harrow school was originally a charitable foundation, but, under a most unfortunate Act of this House, it changed its trustees so that it did not deal with the poor of Harrow but with the elite of the aristocracy. In order to do that, the lower school of John Lyon was founded to act in lieu.

Mr. Kinnock: As my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) is in the privileged position of following the intellectual hon. Member for Harrow, West (Mr. Page), I wonder whether he will inquire, on matters of intellectual content of choice which the hon. Gentleman raised about the schools desired by parents, what is the hon. Gentleman's view of the proposed closure of a sixth form college in Harrow? So far as the House knows, the hon. Gentleman has remained silent on that matter.

Mr. Spearing: I shall be delighted to give way to the hon. Member for Harrow, West.

Mr. John Page: I am desperately sad that the reading of the hon. Member for Bedwellty (Mr. Kinnock) does not cover the Harrow Observer and Gazette as it should. Week after week, my speeches demanding production of the facts are reported and I am sorry that before the hon. Member for Bedwellty cast the stones he did not fully eat the plums.

Mr. Spearing: It seems that the local education authority of Harrow is in some difficulty. I dare not hazard its political complexion, but I suggest that it might wish to be consulted by the Secretary of State or a Minister about the possibility

of assisted places being given. I doubt whether that would be at Harrow school but it might take place at one or two lesser-known institutions.
I believe that it is necessary for the Secretary of State to have drawn to his attention certain matters that may have escaped him. In his opening speech he spoke broadly about the maintained sector and the real public sector of education. He called it the independent sector, but I shall hereafter call it the private sector. He may be interested to know that in Committee I sought to demonstrate that the "pukka" private sector—he will know what I mean; I do not mean the little private school around the corner—has, at a stretch, 1·3 per cent. of all secondary pupils in England and Wales. Even if that is doubled, to a generous 2·6 per cent., about 97·4 per cent. of secondary school pupils in England and Wales are in the maintained sector—the responsibility of the right hon. and learned Gentleman. Even if the figure were 95 per cent., the proportions are almost out of the imagination of those hon. Members who leap to the conclusions that the only educational quality against which we measure all the rest is in the private sector.
I do not deny that the private sector sometimes develops proposals that might be worth adopting or modifying in the public sector. That has happened over the years and it is happening the other way round, nowadays. The contributions in the past of Dr. Arnold and Headmaster Thring may have been educationally advantageous but that does not mean that the nineteenth century ascendancy of those schools should follow into the middle and later part of the twentieth century. Since the Education Act 1944 we have had a universal national system of secondary education. It came rather late in the day, but we have certainly got it.
In supporting the clause, the hon. Gentleman is pretending that anything that is not outside the pukka private sector is somehow ersatz, or second-rate. That demeans his position. Many Opposition Members as well as many of the right hon. and learned Gentleman's supporters in the country, believe that that is what he is doing.
Conservative Members should clearly understand the scheme before they vote. Not many of these places will go to the


"top 20". During the past few months we have been regaled by television programmes giving sidelights on Westminster, as well as a long-running saga on Radley. We learned in Committee that such schools are above the norm that the Minister is likely to set. Even if those schools were interested in offering places, such places would be unlikely to be selected under the scheme.
The Minister went out of his way to suggest that the bulk of pupils in the assisted sector would go to schools that were previously direct grant schools. Many of those pupils will be day pupils. That is the Minister's plan. It is a far cry from the Radley—Eton—Winchester image that the press and perhaps the Secretary of State have in mind.
As for boarding, the Minister did not give much of a reply during the Committee stage. He must come clean. The fees to be paid relate entirely to tuition. The Minister agrees. There will be places at boarding schools, but will those schools be topped up by local authorities? In Committee, the Minister said "Yes". The hon. Member for Harrow, West should reflect that it is a matter not of parental choice but of public money for private education. It is being done in anew way. Will he support a clause whereby additional moneys may be paid by the taxpayers and ratepayers of Harrow, in order to provide boarding education for some pupils in that borough?
Is the hon. Member for Harrow, West prepared to see some schools recruiting such pupils for the good of the school rather than for the good of the pupil? There will be a scramble for brains. We all know that there is competition within the private education sector. There is competition for Oxbridge entry and for A-level statistics. There is a market place. It is done in a gentlemanly way, behind closed doors. None the less, it exists. What is to prevent second-or third-rate private schools from muscling in on the scheme? They say that they will get bright boys from Harrow, and so on. If such pupils have to travel by train, they may get help towards the cost of that transport. We do not know. Such schools wish to improve their statistical academic performance.
In Committee, the Minister told us that he would oblige every maintained school

to publish its examination results. Will there be a league of educational quality that is directly related to statistical examination results? I hope not. If such a league were to exist, schools would be able to demonstrate an apparently superior quality. The Secretary of State has not understood the difference between educational attainment that can be judged, perhaps, from public examination results, and innate educational quality. I do not believe that the right hon. and learned Gentleman understands the difference. If he did so he would not have made the speech that he did at the beginning of the debate.

Mr. Mark Carlisle: I did not open the debate.

Mr. Spearing: I beg the right hon. and learned Gentleman's pardon. I meant to say in intervening.
The task of a schoolteacher or headmaster in dealing with pupils of all ranges of ability is harder and more exacting than that of a teacher in a selective school. Teachers in the private sector who are best known—those who write in the evening papers and appear on television—are guarded from most of the professional problems of the majority. They are protected by selection from having to deal with the commonest and most daunting tasks of professional educators. If the Secretary of State does not believe me, he has only to ask his Under-Secretary, who is sitting next to him. The Gentleman knows that that is true.
In producing the scheme, the Secretary of State is, in effect, harking back to the nineteenth century and producing a Poor Law complex—the idea that those who can afford it or who win scholarships can attain something genuine, but the remainder must make do with second-best. It is not surprising that he thinks that. In his county of Cheshire fewer than 2,500 non-handicapped pupils are sent to independent schools. In Trafford, not very far away, the number is 1,046. That education authority has rigid selection.
In its concept and assumptions, the scheme suggests that we do not have a national system but a nineteenth or early twentieth century system of rationed education—that real education is retained for the lucky 3 per cent., 4 per cent. or 5 per cent. The deserving poor can have access to that education but the remainder


must take second-best. We reject that assumption and hope that the House will reject it by supporting the amendment.

Mr. Mark Carlisle: The hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) suggested that I had spoken at the beginning of the debate, and criticised my speech before I made it. I hope that he will now do me the kindness of listening to my reply and not discount that which I have not said before I have the opportunity to say it.
The hon. Member asked about boarding school places. I thought that we had made it clear that the assisted places scheme would not extend to boarding fees and would extend only to any part of the fee related to tuition in a boarding school. We also made it clear that schools would be able to offer assisted places to boarding pupils only where that was provided for in the participation agreement. Few, if any, places are likely to be offered in that way.

Mr. Spearing: Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman agree that a specific clause in the Bill allows local education authorities to top up at will? That was admitted in Committee. Will he admit it now?

Mr. Carlisle: I do not accept the phrase "at will". The clause allows for payment of the tuition element of boarding fees, if those fees are being paid from some other source. It would occur only if an arrangement was made between the Government and the individual school within the participation agreement to allow for those places.
12.30 am
I come back to the speech of the hon. Member for Bedwellty (Mr. Kinnock). At the beginning of that speech the hon. Member was at his most moderate and most seductive. He said that this was just a little amendment. All he was asking was that we should include consultations with local education authorities about the running of assisted places schools. If that were all that the amendment intended I would be happy to say at once that I accepted it.
In the letter that we sent to chief education officers on 6 December last year we made it clear that local education authorities would be notified of provisional responses to the letter of invitation

from non-maintained schools in their localities and would be given an opportunity to make known to the Secretary of State their views about the operation of the scheme in their area if they wished to do so. The hon. Member for Bedwellty claimed that all he wanted was consultation, but it is already quite clear that we would consult.
The hon. Member knows full well that his "mild" amendment, which supposedly goes no further than consultation, is, in fact, aimed at totally frustrating and killing the assisted places scheme. It is clear that the debate that has developed tonight is about the principle behind the assisted places scheme.
The amendment would give the right of veto to any local education authority. It would enable it to say to any school that wished to take part in the scheme "We say that the independent schools in our area shall not participate". The local education authority would have the power to tell parents in the area who might wish to take part that they could not do so, for purely doctrinaire reasons. In other words, the hon. Member would give the right, at the diktat of local education authorities, to overrule the will of the House of Commons.

Mr. Christopher Price: Mr. Christopher Price rose—

Mr. Carlisle: No, I shall not give way at the moment. If this amendment were accepted the hon. Member for Bedwellty would storm the country telling local authorities that they should refuse to take part in the scheme. Let us take the case of Manchester.—[HON MEMBERS: "Why not Blackpool?"]—I shall come to Blackpool in a moment. I shall have certain things to say to my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Blackpool, North (Mr. Miscampbell)—in the politest and kindest way, of course.
Just as the Manchester education authority has attempted to block the scheme put up by the Greater Manchester council to give financial assistance to those attending schools such as Manchester grammer, so the hon. Member for Bedwellty would wish to give power to the education authority to say that despite the fact that the scheme had been approved by Parliament, the education authority, because of its Socialist principles, should have the right to prevent


a school of the calibre of Manchester grammar from taking part.
Therefore, the hon. Member would perpetuate a view that I find difficult to understand—a view that is constantly put forward by Labour Ministers, namely, that the high academic education that exists in many of these schools should be for ever limited to those who can afford to pay the fees, rather than made available to those whose children might benefit from it.

Mr. Christopher Price: Does the Secretary of State not agree that the counterpart of the dictation that he is talking about is that he will allow non-elected governors of a school such as Manchester grammar school to dictate to the primary schools in the city that they should re-institute an 11-plus exam that they have got rid of? Is he saying that self-perpetuating, non-elected governing bodies should be given greater weight in their ability to dictate such matters than the democratically elected representatives of the people?

Mr. Carlisle: I do not accept that I am giving to the governors of Manchester grammar school the means to dictate to the primary schools in Manchester the type of curriculum that they should follow. I am providing the opportunity for parents in Manchester to send their children to Manchester grammar school, if they wish, on the basis not only of the size of the parents' purse but on the ability of the children.
The hon. Member for Bedwellty took me to task for the speech that I made in Manchester recently, and he took exception to the fact that I said that one of the advantages of an independent sector of education was that it provided a standard of comparison of performance against which the State sector could be judged. I cannot understand what objection the hon. Gentleman can have to the use of that phrase.
Let me put it the other way round. The existence of the State sector provides a standard of comparison of performance against which the independent sector can be judged.

Mr. Kinnock: The right hon. and learned Gentleman did not say that.

Mr. Carlisle: The point is simple. If the hon. Member for Bedwellty examines

the context of my speech he will see that the point was clear. I was saying that there were certain fundamental arguments in favour of having an independent sector of education.
One reason that I gave was the freedom of choice for parents to decide to educate their children and spend their money as they wish. The second reason that I mentioned was that the existence alongside the State sector of an independent sector provided a standard of comparison of performance against which the State sector would be judged. I find nothing discreditable to the State sector in that statement, and I do not intend to withdraw it.
I believe that my third reason was that the existence of a non-State-maintained sector prevented the possible future danger of too great a State intervention in our education system.

Mr. Kinnock: The right hon. and learned Gentleman's third point was that the private system was so good because it was a demonstration of parental interest. In one speech, the Secretary of State defaced liberty by putting a price tag on it, undermined confidence in the maintained sector and taught parents that unless they paid they were somehow not meeting their obligations.

Mr. Carlisle: That is a gross exaggeration of my modest speech. I will look again at the speech, but I believe that I said that one of the important aspects of the success of a school was parental involvement, which is what a number of clauses in the Bill are about.
If parental interest leads to their involvement and therefore to interest in the schools and improvements in the standard of education it is something that the House ought to applaud.
I want, therefore, to leave the arguments of the hon. Member for Bedwellty—except to say that concerning the circular letter that we put out, certain replies, as I shall show shortly, are still coming in.
I repeat that the principle behind the assisted places scheme is that it should be complementary to the State scheme, to use the advantages that exist in certain of the independent schools to provide opportunity for individual children, which I do not believe can necessarily be adequately met in the schools in the area.


The hon. Gentleman said that in proposing this argument—and I look back at his speeches—I was somehow slurring the State sector, that I was saying that this provision could not be made within the State sector. I say to the hon. Gentleman that the party that damaged the State sector was the party that withdrew the direct grant schools, which were then a part, basically, of the State sector. It was the Labour Government who, withdrawing the direct grant system, sent 123 of those direct grant schools into being independent schools and withdrew the facilities that up to that moment had been available to children in the maintained sector.

Mr. Christopher Price: About 60 direct grant schools came in.

Mr. Carlisle: The Catholic ones did. All that we are basically trying to do by this scheme is to restore the opportunities that existed at the direct grant schools to children in those areas.

Mr. Beith: The right hon. and learned Gentleman has just made a very important point. He talked about the need to make special provision for children in certain areas, all of which implies that he will be making some choice, when he chooses which schools can take part in the scheme, as to which parts of the country have some deficiency in the State education system. Will he really be doing that? Will he confine it to certain direct grant schools? If so, will be he consulting the local authorities of those areas and others in order to decide whether they are really the places which have these alleged deficiencies?

Mr. Carlisle: Of course I shall be consulting the LEAs. I shall also be assessing individual schools on their individual abilities and relating them to needs in the area; that I accept.
I want to come to the point of the hon. Member's question. He asked what the schools that are applying were. He implied that they are the second-rate schools. The situation is that to date there have been provisional replies from 430 of those schools and 113—[Interruption.] Provisional replies are what they were asked for. If I have got the wrong word, I apologise. They replied to express their provisional interest in involvement in the scheme, and 113 out of the 118 ex-direct

grant school have indicated their interest in being involved in the scheme. Overall, the total number of places is now 12,000. Therefore, my intention and the desire that the scheme should be based basically on the old direct grant schools is, I believe, already being confirmed by the standard of school that is replying about the scheme.

Mr. Kinnock: The right hon. and learned Gentleman again drew upon the instance of that direct grant scheme and used it as evidence to show that it offered opportunities to children that now allegedly do not exist. Is he aware—if he had been on the Committee he would be aware of it—of the class background of the children attending the direct grant schools?
About 73 per cent. were from the administrative and professional classes, 20 per cent. were from skilled worker classes and 7 per cent. were from the unskilled worker class. That is the profile that will be continued through the assisted places scheme. The right hon. and learned Gentleman will not be meeting one of his major objectives, which, allegedly, is to help poor children.

Mr. Carlisle: I should like to make two points. First, the financing of the assisted places scheme is different from that which existed previously.
Secondly, although this is a lesser point, the ex-direct grammar schools still have at the latter end of their school age group those who were the entry of the old direct grant schools.
I do not wish to be accused of knocking State education at all. However, I do not believe that anyone can, with honesty, say that certain centres of academic excellence in our industrial areas are not, for all kinds of historic reasons, based on the old direct grant schools. I used the example of Manchester grammar school. I shall take another example of a school which I recently visited. [Interruption.] The Labour Government threw them out by insisting that they could not continue with their previous status. That is what we are trying to restore.
I shall take another example—Bradford grammar school—where the former Chancellor of the Exchequer—the right


hon. Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey)—was a student. Recently, I went to the prize-giving at Bradford grammar school—an ex-direct grant school—andsaw that one could not but be impressed by the high academic results achieved there.

Mr. Ernest Armstrong: By selection.

Mr. Carlisle: Of course. It is no criticism of the schools in the area to say that the results being achieved by the children at that school would not have been achieved by them if, instead of being at Bradford grammar school, they had been at other schools in the area. The ability to be educated in competition with those of one's own academic ability must have some reaction on the standard of education.

Mr. Robert Hughes: rose—

Mr. Carlisle: I am trying to answer the debate. In the end, I have the responsibility to consider—with respect, the hon. Member for Lewisham, West (Mr. Price) got the legal basis wrong—the individual opportunities of the individual child. If I believe that a particular child of talent will benefit by attendance at certain of the old direct grant schools, it is a proper use of public money to assist that child to benefit from that education.

Mr. Hughes: Would the right hon. and learned Gentleman concede that he has a responsibility to other children in the State education system? If, as he said, there is a greater talent available going to the direct grant schools and if he is saying that the parents of those children may be more involved in their children's education, how can he help to raise general educational standards for those children who cannot get entry to direct grant schools by withdrawing other pupils and the parental involvement that is necessary to ensure that education is improved?

Mr. Carlisle: The fundamental responsibility of any Secretary of State for Education and Science must be to the vast majority of the children in the State sector. I do not accept that the opportunities provided by the ex-direct grant system—now the assisted places scheme—

will interfere with the opportunities available in the State sector. I have to weigh against that the effect of the opportunities for the individual child. I believe that we have the balance right.

Mr. Kinnock: The right hon. and learned Gentleman, by the way in which he has embraced competition and the competitive virtue, and by the way in which he has applauded the attributes of the direct grant system, has given a strong and clear impression that it is his profound belief that he has to create this isolated separatist system to provide the opportunities about which he has been talking. But by that means he is discarding any interest in the children who are not in that sector.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman talks about results. The 1977 Department of Education and Science statistics on school leavers who achieved one or more A-level passes as a percentage of those who attempted A-level examinations show 85·1 per cent. for comprehensive schools, 91·6 for grammar schools, 77·9 per cent. for modern schools and others, 95 per cent. for direct grant schools, 91·2 per cent. for independent schools, recognised as efficient, and 87·8 per cent. for all schools. That is the margin of difference between schools with the advantages of emphasis on academic achievement against schools with practically none of those advantages. There is no difference in the outturn.

Mr. Carlisle: I do not accept what the hon. Gentleman says. I believe that the old direct grant schools were a useful and valuable addition to the maintained sector of education available to children. I believe that we are right to restore that similar opportunity through the assisted places scheme. My hon. Friend the Member for Bodmin (Mr. Hicks) talked about the scheme being politically unwise at this time. Of course, I realise that the Department, at this moment—I have never disguised the fact—is under serious financial restraint over education generally.
I have equally made clear that I would retain the timing and the speed and the degree of implementation of the assisted places scheme in my own hands. It is only right, in view of the speculation that has arisen in the press over recent weeks, and in view of certain remarks today, that I should make clear that my


present plan is to start the scheme in 1981. I propose that it should start, in the first financial year, at a cost of £3 million, building up over the period to 1983–84 and providing for the admission of about 6,000 pupils a year. I would say to my hon. Friend that it is beyond belief that the spending of £3 million in this way against a total budget of £8 billion can possibly be expected to have the effect that he suggests.
I must tell my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Blackpool, North that one cannot go on arguing about marginal costs. The whole of the education expenditure is based on the idea of the cost of the individual child. The cost of the support under the assisted places scheme is likely to be very similar to the cost of educating that child free at the moment in the State scheme. I do not accept that the implementation of the assisted places scheme will have any adverse effect on the State education system.

Mr. Hugh Dykes: I abstained on the Second Reading of the Bill because of this clause. My right hon. and learned Friend has repeated his undertaking, given on Second Reading and in Committee, to introduce the scheme in 1981. As the Government have to refer inevitably to the possibility of further public spending cuts in the period 1980–81, would it not be appropriate for him to consider deferring further the introduction of this scheme, even on a partial basis, bearing in mind the difference between expending public money on this scheme and reducing educational expenditure in all other areas?

Mr. Carlisle: I obviously had to consider this matter. I have decided that rather than defer the introduction of the scheme, the right decision would be to introduce it in 1981 but at half the level that I originally intended. The cost in that financial year will, therefore, be about £3 million.
I have listened on many occasions to the objections of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Blackpool, North to the scheme, but, with respect, one of the weakest arguments that he could have advanced tonight was the one that I can only describe as giving in to blackmail. He suggested that we should not go forward with the scheme because the

Labour Party has threatened to do away with it in the future.
My hon. and learned Friend said that he thought it was reasonable to make special provision out of public funds for children to attend special schools where music is taught. If he accepts that in principle, whether it be the Yehudi Menuhin school or Chetham's school of music, what is the difference between that and providing help to children of high academic ability to enable them to go to a school of an academic bent?

Mr. Miscampbell: The difference is quite clear. One is a specialised thing, which it is not a general requirement to provide; the other is fundamental to our whole education system. We ought to cherish our brightest children. One would have thought that a Secretary of State would hold on to them rather than give them away. We ought to use them.

Mr. Carlisle: My hon. and learned Friend uses the phrase "give them away", rather in the manner that another hon. Member talked earlier about urchins and gutters. I found those terribly unattractive phrases to use, even if characteristic. We are not talking about giving children away, or about poaching, or urchins, or gutters. We are trying to provide a system that will give the best educational opportunities to individual children in this country. If by not only making use of the existing maintained sector but making partial use of those provisions that already exist in the independent sector we can assist the opportunities available to individual children, we are right to do so. That is why I believe that the scheme is right and that the amendment is totally misguided.

Mr. Flannery: The Minister, by his doctrinaire intransigence, has rendered himself quite impervious to reasoned argument. It does not matter what we say; the Conservative Party will go through with its elitist scheme. We know that. None the less, the arguments need to be put and are being put. We spent nearly 100 hours in Committee listening basically to one Conservative Member and putting our arguments there. Then we have to put up with new clauses that were not put during those 100 hours, and that apparently have emerged only in the last few hours.
The sheer arrogance of the argument to which we have just listened is almost unbelievable. Clause 17 begins with wording that is completely removed from reality, after all the long years of maintained education. It reads:
For the purpose of enabling pupils who might otherwise not be able to do so to benefit from education at independent schools".
In all conscience, what does the right hon. and learned Gentleman think he is talking about? The implication in that is that somehow or other the maintained schools do not produce the standard of education that can be obtained in private schools. What utter claptrap—and of course, our people know it. That is why the Tory council of Blackpool and Tory councils throughout the country are opposed to any scheme to reintroduce the 11-plus examination. In fact, the Conservative Party knows that—in line with practically every other policy it has in every other sphere of human conduct—it is now defending the indefensible in education.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman has no arguments whatever. Hon Members will only need to read his speech tomorrow to realise how barren of any real educational approach it was. All that we are asking him to do is to consult the local education authority before this programme is put into action.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman has intoned, like an incantation, for years that the Conservative Party wants decentralisation, yet as soon as we ask for the local education authorities to be consulted we are told that that cannot be done. The right hon. and learned Gentleman actually used the word "diktat". He said that he did not want any diktat from local education authorities—those who are elected councillors carrying out policies at the chalk face. They are democratically elected. One Conservative Member used the expression "elected dictatorship". I do not know whether that exists, but the closest that we have come to it is with the Government, who are determined that no locally elected people shall have the power to issue a diktat.
1 am
Let us get down to brass tasks. The right hon. and learned Gentleman does not want to consult local councillors, but

wishes to resurrect the 11-plus examination. He believes that these schools can provide some special education which cannot be provided by the maintained sector. The right hon. and learned Gentleman heard his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Blackpool, North (Mr. Miscampbell) say that the results from schools in Blackpool, and other areas, in terms of O-and A-levels were as good as those in the private sector, even with the larger classes that exist in local authority schools.
We tried to raise other matters. We pointed out that the segregation of elitist children is not compatible with the comprehensive system. It means that certain parents and children will no longer have access to the comprehensive schools, nor will they be able to add their voices to discussions of the comprehensive system. Certain children will receive special concessions at a time when other children are having concessions removed. [Interruption.] When Conservative Members scream, I know that the facts hurt.
The National Union of Teachers said in a report:
This Government proposes to increase significantly the revenue of the independent sector at a time when it is inflicting uprecedented cuts on the maintained sector. New money and new pupils are to be introduced to private education at the expense of the maintained sector. While county and voluntary schools face a period of reduced capitation and fewer pupils, restraints in the curriculum, the curtailment of subjects and even teacher redundancy, the Government by direct intervention proposes the expansion and new growth of private schools.
One reason why we wish local education authorities to be consulted is that we know that many of the schools will be filled with these new pupils and that new private schools will be established. That is precisely what the Conservative Party is after. It is not after merely a rebirth of the schools. It wants public money for those schools. It has always wanted public money for them.
When the previous Labour Administration curtailed public spending on private schools, Conservative hon. Members immediately screamed, and now the Government are returning public money to those schools at a time when they are cutting expenditure on other services, such as nursery schools. They wish to give £60 million to the children of their own


supporters. That is the reality, and that is what the Labour Party is fighting against.

Mr. Canavan: Is my hon. Friend aware that, apart from the handout of public money that will occur as a result of the assisted places scheme, fee-paying schools—they are called public schools, but that is a misnomer—also receive handouts by way of tax concessions? How many millions of pounds do such schools receive?

Mr. Flannery: My hon. Friend is correct. The Conservative Party will draw from the Exchequer in the interests of its own children. Anybody who disagrees with that may intervene.

Several hon. Members: Several hon. Members rose—

Mr. Flannery: Splendid. I shall give way in a moment. Is it not a reality that a sum of £55 million is being taken from the education of our children generally to be given to a few children of Conservative Party supporters?

Mr. Peter Bottomley: All that I can say is that one of the greatest reasons for having the House of Commons is that it keeps the hon. Gentlemen out of a primary school. I remain convinced that one can run an assisted places scheme at a lower cost to the common exchequer, as the hon. Gentleman called it, than the maintained system. If parents who would qualify for the assisted money were so confident about the system provided by the State, they would not choose to take up those places. The hon. Gentleman must face that reality. Can he say what proportion of the lower-income families who would benefit would want to try? As a Member of Parliament, does the hon. Gentleman believe that a county or education authority should have the right to say to those families that they are wrong and that he is right?

Mr. Flannery: The hon. Gentleman must think that we are incredibly naive. Obviously he wants to get buckshee from public money what at present he has to pay for privately. We all know that. I remember the last time that the hon. Gentleman intervened in my speech. He told me that he had been educated in a comprehensive school. I checked, and discovered that he went to a public school

and was in America for a short time, where no such schools exist.

Mr. Bottomley: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will not mind my correcting him, as I often have to do. What I said was that at the age of 11 I went to a comprehensive school.

Mr. Canavan: Where was it?

Mr. Bottomley: It was in Washington DC. As it happens, when I went back to the school two years ago I discovered that it had been closed because families had had the opportunity of taking their children away from it as better schools were available.

Mr. Flannery: The hon. Gentleman has made my point for me. When he spoke, he never told us that the school was in Washington. He led us to believe that it was in England.
I want to take up an important point about inspection. The local education authority has all its schools inspected by reputable inspectors. We want these schools inspected. For example, teachers who have been kicked out of the maintained sector and fled into the private sector, often because they have assaulted children—[Interruption.] It is all very well Conservative Members laughing, but I assure them that any teachers' union will confirm that these things occur, even though many teachers belong to a union to defend themselves against charges of that nature.
We want the capitation allowances, the number of books and the size of classes inspected by the local authority. We want the sizes of classrooms inspected. We want to ensure that the children who leave the splendid education in the maintained sector are not going to something much worse. That is the reality of what I am saying, because we can prove by results that the maintained sector is better than anything in the private sector. Therefore, we want to defend the maintained sector.

Mr. Mark Carlisle: If the hon. Gentleman is seriously advancing that argument, is he saying that he has so little regard for the interest, concern or sense of parents that he believes that they will send their children to schools, often at their own expense, which are far worse than those in the State system? That is what he appears to be saying.

Mr. Flannery: I conclude on this point—[Interruption.] The right hon. and learned Gentleman has been answered over and over again. He knows that my whole life proves that I am dedicated to the education of children. I made the terrible mistake of thinking, at one stage, that the Minister was similarly dedicated. But the right hon. Lady, his master, has told him to do something different. That is the reality.
I want to deal—

Mr. Patrick Cormack: Mr. Patrick Cormack (Staffordshire, South-West) rose—

Mr. Flannery: I want—

Mr. Cormack: Mr. Cormack rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is not giving way.

Mr. Flannery: I just want to take up one more point before I—

Mr. Cormack: Mr. Cormack rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I do not want to have to tell the hon. Gentleman again.

Mr. Flannery: I want to take up the point made by the hon. Member for Harrow, West (Mr. Page), who was described by one of my hon. Friends as not being a mental giant. He mentioned his concern for parental choice. We all know how deeply concerned the Conservative Party is about parental choice in education. During all the years when there was an 11-plus examination, 85 per cent. of parents had no choice whatever. It depended upon whether there was a grammar school in the area and the variation in the IQ of the children. In some areas children with an 10 of 100 got a place, and in other areas their IQ had to be an average of 117 before they were

accepted. It also depended upon the number of grammar school places that were available. All the other children were consigned to secondary modern schools, and a serious attempt is now being made by the Conservatives not merely to bring back the 11-plus but to resurrect the secondary modern school for our children. We shall fight that tooth and nail.

The hon. Member for Harrow, West talked about parental choice, but we never saw him get to his feet along with the other hon. Members to defend the parental choice of the 85 per cent. of parents whose children went to a secondary modern school whether they like it or not.

The Conservatives are a race of hypocrites out for something for themselves. [HON. MEMBERS: "Withdraw,"] I withdraw the word "hypocrite". The Conservatives are engaging in hypocrisy. Is that better? They want something for nothing, and they want it at the expense of our children. We shall not let them have it if we can avoid it.

Mr. Peter Bottomley: May I intervene for 30 seconds to deal very kindly with the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mr. Flannery) and remind him that even in the great ILEA, which has officially got rid of the 11-plus, during the last two months 11-year-old children have been taking the 11-plus examination, so that many of them will not be able to go to a school of their parents' choice because they are too bright, too dim or too average. The 11-plus is still there.

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 239, Noes 292.

Division No. 176]
AYES
[1.15 pm


Abse, Leo
Booth, Rt Hon Albert
Clark, Dr David (South Shields)


Adams, Allen
Boothroyd, Miss Betty
Cocks, Rt Hon Michael (Bristol S)


Allaun, Frank
Bray, Dr Jeremy
Cohen, Stanley


Alton, David
Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)
Coleman, Donald


Anderson, Donald
Brown, Robert C. (Newcastle W)
Concannon, Rt Hon J. D.


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Brown, Ronald W. (Hackney S)
Conlan, Bernard


Armstrong, Rt Hon Ernest
Brown, Ron (Edinburgh, Leith)
Cook, Robin F.


Ashley, Rt Hon Jack
Buchan, Norman
Cowans, Harry


Ashton, Joe
Callaghan, Jim (Middleton &amp; P)
Craigen, J. M. (Glasgow, Maryhill)


Atkinson, Norman (H'gey, Tott'ham)
Campbell, Ian
Crowther, J. S.


Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)
Campbell-Savours, Dale
Cryer, Bob


Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (Heywood)
Canavan, Dennis
Cunliffe, Lawrence


Beith, A. J.
Cant, R. B.
Cunningham, George (Islington S)


Benn, Rt Hon Anthony Wedgwood
Carmichael, Neil
Cunningham, Dr John (Whitehaven)


Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)
Carter-Jones, Lewis
Dalyell, Tam


Bidwell, Sydney
Cartwright, John
Davidson, Arthur




Davies, I for (Gower)
Jones, Barry (East Flint)
Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn (Leeds South)


Davis, Terry (B'rm'ham, Stechford)
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Richardson, Jo


Deakins, Eric
Kerr, Russell
Roberts, Allan (Bootle)


Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)
Kilroy-Silk, Robert
Roberts, Ernest (Hackney North)


Dempsey, James
Kinnock, Neil
Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)


Dewar, Donald
Knox, David
Robertson, George


Dixon, Donald
Lambie, David
Robinson, Geoffrey (Coventry NW)


Dobson, Frank
Lamborn, Harry
Rodgers, Rt Hon William


Dormaad, Jack
Lamond, James
Rooker, J. W.


Douglas, Dick
Leadbitter, Ted
Roper, John


Douglas-Mann, Bruce
Leighton, Ronald
Ross, Ernest (Dundee West)


Dubs, Alfred
Lestor, Miss Joan (Eton &amp; Slough)
Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)


Duffy, A. E. P.
Lewis, Arthur (Newham North West)
Rowlands, Ted


Dunn, James A. (Liverpool, Kirkdale)
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Ryman, John


Dykes, Hugh
Litherland, Robert
Sever, John


Eadie, Alex
Lofthouse, Geoffrey
Sheerman, Barry


Easiham, Ken
Lyon, Alexander (York)
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert (A'ton-u-L)


Ellis, Raymond (NE Derbyshire)
Lyons, Edward (Bradford West)
Silkin, Rt Hon John (Deptford)


Ellis, Tom (Wrexham)
Mabon, Rt Hon Dr J. Dickson
Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)


English, Michael
McCartney, Hugh
Silverman, Julius


Evans, Ioan (Aberdare)
McElhone, Frank
Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)


Evans, John (Newlon)
McKay, Allen (Penistone)
Smith, Rt Hon J. (North Lanarkshire)


Ewing, Harry
McKelvey, William
Snape, Peter


Faulds, Andrew
MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor
Soley, Clive


Field, Frank
Maclennan, Robert
Spearing, Nigel


Flennery, Martin
McMahon, Andrew
Spriggs, Leslie


Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, Central)
Stallard, A. W.


Foot, Rt Hon Michael
McNally, Thomas
Steel, Rt Hon David


Forrester, John
McNamara, Kevin
Stoddart, David


Foster, Derek
McWilliam, John
Stott, Roger


Foulkes, Gaorge
Magee, Bryan
Strang, Gavin


Fraser, John (Lambeth, Norwood)
Marks, Kenneth
Straw, Jack


Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald
Marshall, David (Gl'sgow, Shettles'n)
Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley


Freud, Clement
Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton West)


Garrett, John (Norwich S)
Martin, Michael (Gl'gow, Springb'rn)
Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)


George, Bruce
Maxton, John
Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)


Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John
Meacher, Michael
Thomas, Mike (Newcastle East)


Golding, John
Mellish, Rt Hon Robert
Thomas, Dr Roger (Carmarthen)


Graham, Ted
Mikardo, Ian
Thorne, Neil (Ilford South)


Grant, George (Morpeth)
Millan, Rt Hon Bruce
Tilley, John


Grant, John (Islington C)
Miller, Dr M. S. (East Kilbride)
Torney, Tom


Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)
Mitchell, Austin (Grimsby)
Urwin, Rt Hon Tom


Harrison, Rt Hon Walter
Mitchell, R. C. (Solon, Itchen)
Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.


Hart, Rt Hon Dame Judith
Morris, Rt Hon Alfred (Wythenshawe)
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)


Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy
Morris, Rt Hon Charles (Openshaw)
Walker, Rt Hon Harold (Doncaster)


Haynes, Frank
Morris, Rt Hon John (Aberavon)
Weetch, Ken


Healey, Rt Hon Denis
Morton, George
Wellbeloved, James


Heffer, Eric S.
Moyle, Rt Hon Roland
Welsh, Michael


Hicks, Robert
Mulley, Rt Hon Frederick
White, Frank R. (Bury &amp; Radcliffe)


Hogg, Norman (E Dunbartonshire)
Newens, Stanley
White, James (Glasgow, Pollok)


Holland, Stuart (L'beth, Vauxhall)
Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon
Whitehead, Phillip


Home Robertson, John
Ogden, Eric
Whitlock, William


Homewood, William
O'Neill, Martin
Wigley, Dafydd


Hooley, Frank
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)


Horam, John
Owen, Rt Hon Dr David
Wilson, Rt Hon Sir Harold (Huyton)


Howells, Geraint
Palmer, Arthur
Wilson, William (Coventry SE)


Huckfield, Les
Park, George
Winnick, David


Hughes, Mark (Durham)
Parry, Robert
Woodall, Alec


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen North)
Pavitt, Laurie
Wrigglesworth, Ian


Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Pendry, Tom
Wright, Sheila


Janner, Hon Greville
Penhaligon, David
Young, David (Bolton East)


Jay, Rt Hon Douglas
Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)



John, Brynmor
Prescott, John
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Johnston, Russell (Inverness)
Price, Christopher (Lewisham West)
Mr. James Hamilton and


Jones, Rt Hon Alec (Rhondda)
Race, Reg
Mr. James Tinn.




NOES


Adley, Robert
Bevan, David Gilroy
Brooke, Hon Peter


Aitken, Jonathan
Biffen, Rt Hon John
Brotherton, Michael


Alexander, Richard
Biggs-Davison, John
Brown, Michael (Brigg &amp; Sc'thorpe)


Ancram, Michael
Blackburn, John
Browne, John (Winchester)


Arnold, Tom
Blaker, Peter
Bruce-Gardyne, John


Aspinwall, Jack
Body, Richard
Bryan, Sir Paul


Atkins, Rt Hon H. (Spelthorne)
Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Buck, Antony


Atkins, Robert (Preston North)
Boscawen, Hon Robert
Budgen, Nick


Atkinson, David (B'mouth, East)
Bottomley, Peter (Woolwich West)
Bulmer, Esmond


Baker, Kenneth (St. Marylebone)
Bowden, Andrew
Butcher, John


Baker, Nicholas (North Dorset)
Boyson, Dr Rhodes
Cadbury, Jocelyn


Banks, Robert
Bradford, Rev. R.
Carlisle, John (Luton West)


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Braine, Sir Bernard
Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)


Bendall, Vivian
Bright, Graham
Carlisle, Rt Hon Mark (Runcorn)


Benyon, Thomas (Abingdon)
Brinton, Tim
Chalker, Mrs Lynda


Benyon, W. (Buckingham)
Brittan, Leon
Channon, Paul


Best, Keith
Brocklebank-Fowler, Christopher
Chapman, Sydney







Clark, Hon Alan (Plymouth, Sutton)
Johnson Smith, Geoffrey
Raison, Timothy


Clark, Sir William (Croydon South)
Jopling, Rt Hon Michael
Rathbone, Tim


Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith
Rees, Peter (Dover and Deal)


Cockeram, Eric
Kaberry, Sir Donald
Rees-Davies, W. R.


Colvin, Michael
Kershaw, Anthony
Renton, Tim


Cope, John
King, Rt Hon Tom
Rhodes James, Robert


Cormack, Patrick
Kitson, Sir Timothy
Ridley, Hon Nicholas


Corrie, John
Lamont, Norman
Ridsdale, Julian


Costain, A. P.
Lang, Ian
Rifkind, Malcolm


Cranborne, Viscount
Langford-Holt, Sir John
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)


Critchley, Julian
Latham, Michael
Ross, Wm. (Londonderry)


Crouch, David
Lawrence, Ivan
Rost, Peter


Dean, Paul (North Somerset)
Lawson, Nigel
Royle, Sir Anthony


Dickens, Geoffrey
Lee, John
Sainsbury, Hon Timothy


Dorrell, Stephen
Le Marchant, Spencer
St. John Stevas, Rt Hon Norman


Dover, Denshore
Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark
Scott, Nicholas


du Cann, Rt Hon Edward
Lester, Jim (Beeston)
Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)


Dunn, Robert (Dartford)
Lloyd, Ian (Havant &amp; Waterloo)
Shelton, William (Streatham)


Durant, Tony
Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Eden, Rt Hon Sir John
Loveridge, John
Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge-Br'hills)


Edwards, Rt Hon N. (Pembroke)
Luce, Richard
Shersby, Michael


Eggar, Timothy
Lyell, Nicholas
Silvester, Fred


Emery, Peter
McCrindle, Robert
Sims, Roger


Fairbairn, Nicholas
Macfarlane, Neil
Skeet, T, H. H.


Fairgrieve, Russell
MacGregor, John
Smith, Dudley (War, and Leam'ton)


Faith, Mrs Sheila
MacKay, John (Argyll)
Speed, Keith


Farr, John
McNair-Wilson, Michael (Newbury)
Speller, Tony


Fenner, Mrs Peggy
McNair-Wilson, Patrick (New Forest)
Spence, John


Finsberg, Geoffrey
McCuarrie, Albert
Spicer, Jim (West Dorset)


Fisher, Sir Nigel
Madel, David
Spicer, Michael (S Worcestershire)


Fletcher, Alexander (Edinburgh N)
Major, John
Sproat, Iain


Fookes, Miss Janet
Marland, Paul
Squire, Robin


Format, Nigel
Marlow, Tony
Stainton, Keith


Fowler, Rt Hon Norman
Marshall, Michael (Arundel)
Stanbrook, Ivor


Fox, Marcus
Marten, Neil (Banbury)
Stanley, John


Fraser, Rt Hon H. (Stafford &amp; St)
Mates, Michael
Steen, Anthony


Fraser, Peter (South Angus)
Maude, Rt Hon Angus
Stevens, Martin


Fry, Peter
Mawby, Ray
Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)


Gardiner George (Reigate)
Mawhinney, Dr Brian
Stewart, John (East Renfrewshire)


Gardner, Edward (South Fylde)
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Stokes, John


Garel-Jones, Tristan
Mayhew, Patrick
Stradling Thomas, J.


Glimour, Rt Hon Sir Ian
Mellor, David
Taylor, Robert (Croydon NW)


Glyn, Dr Alan
Meyer, Sir Anthony
Tebbit, Norman


Goodhart, Philip
Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove &amp; Redditch)
Temple-Morris, Peter


Goodlad, Alastair
Mills, Iain (Meriden)
Thatcher, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret


Gorst, John
Mills, Peter (West Devon)
Thomas, Rt Hon peter (Hendon S)


Gow, Ian
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)
Thompson, Donald


Gower, Sir Raymond
Moate, Roger
Thorne, Neil (Ilford South)


Grant, Anthony (Harrow C)
Molyneaux, James
Thornton, Malcolm


Gray, Hamish
Monro, Hector
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Greenway, Harry
Montgomery, Fergus
Townsend, Cyril D. (Bexleyheath)


Grieve, Percy
Moore, John
Trippier, David


Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St Edmunds)
Morris, Michael (Northampton, Sth)
Trotter, Neville


Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)
Morrison, Hon Charles (Devizes)
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Grist, Ian
Morrison, Hon Peter (City of Chester)
Vaughan, Dr Gerard


Grylls, Michael
Mudd, David
Viggers, Peter


Gummer, John Selwyn
Murphy, Christopher
Waddinglon, David


Hamilton, Hon Archie (Eps'm&amp;Ew'll)
Myles, David
Wakeham, John


Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Neale, Gerrard
Waldegrave, Hon William


Hampson, Dr Keith
Needham, Richard
Walker, Bill (Perth &amp; E Perthshire)


Hannam, John
Nelson, Anthony
Waller, Gary


Haselhurst, Alan
Neubert, Michael
Ward, John


Hastings, Stephen
Newton, Tony
Warren, Kenneth


Hawksley, Warren
Nott, Rt Hon John
Watson, John


Hayhce, Barney
Onslow, Cranley
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Heddle, John
Page, John (Harrow, West)
Wells, Bowen (Hert'rd a Stev'nage)


Henderson, Barry
Page, Rt Hon Sir R. Graham
Wheeler, John


Haseltine, Rt Hon Michael
Page, Richard (SW Hertfordshire)
Whitelaw, Rt Hon William


Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.
Parkinson, Cecil
Whitney, Raymond


Hill, James
Parris, Matthew
Wickenden, Keith


Hogg, Hon Douglas (Grantham)
Patten, Christopher (Bath)
Wiggin, Jerry


Holland, Philip (Carlton)
Patten, John (Oxford)
Wilkinson, John


Hooson, Tom
Pattle, Geoffrey
Williams, Delwyn (Montgomery)


Hordern, Peter
Pawsey, James
Winterton, Nicholas


Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Percival, Sir Ian
Wollson, Mark


Howell, Rt Hon David (Guildford)
Pink, R. Bonner
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)
Pollock, Alexander
Younger, Rt Hon George


Hunt, David (Wirral)
Porter, George



Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)
Powell, Rt Hon J. Enoch (S Down)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Hurd, Hon Douglas
Price, David (Eastleigh)
Lord James Douglas-Hamilton and


Irving, Charles (Cheltenham)
Proctor, K. Harvey
Mr. Carol Mather.


Jenkin, Rt Hon Patrick
Pym, Rt Hon Francis

Question accordingly negatived.

Clause 17

ASSISTED PLACES AT INDEPENDENT SCHOOLS

Mr. Kinnock: I beg to move amendment No. 113, in page 18, line 5 after 'conditions', insert 'of parental income'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take amendment No. 110, in page 18, line 17 at end insert—
'(6A) For the purpose of this section the parental income shall be defined as the total gross income of the family".

Mr. Kinnock: We now come to the question of the income test for parents seeking admission for their children to the assisted places scheme. Unfortunately, we shall not be able to discuss the matter in detail because of the way in which our discussions have been truncated. I shall speak briefly because I know that several hon. Members wish to speak in the debate.
The proposition in clause 17 is that children who might not otherwise be able to do so, presumably on the ground of their parents' limited income, should be able to take advantage of places in the independent sector. We have always held the belief that this is a false prospectus and that the possibility of poor children being able to participate in education in the private sector by means of this scheme is remote. Indeed, the idea that the proposal is for the children of the poor is a cosmetic to disguise the restoration of the direct grant system, with all its distortions and unequal distribution of opportunity.
Examination of the figures in the written answer of 7 February 1980 will more than adequately demonstrate that our fears about the scheme and the opportunities allegedly said to be open to the children of the poor have been well founded. It is worth commenting that if anything should attract the support of Conservative Back Benchers it is the idea that, for reasons of charity and humanitarianism, the scheme could offer opportunities for children from poor backgrounds. Yet, on Second Reading, in Committee and on Report there has been little support for the Government from their Back Benchers. Indeed, in the last debate only one Conservative Back Bencher—the hon. Member for Harrow,

West (Mr. Page)—spoke in support of the Government. The Government will know how much store to set by that degree of support.
The Government propose that there should be a sliding scale of contributions depending on the total family income. Remission will be made according to that income and set against the fees. On first sight of the lower income level, the fact that a family with an income of less than £4,000 per annum will be able to have access to the scheme for one of its children absolutely free appears to be an egalitarian measure. At least it appears to provide an opportunity that did not exist previously. However, taking into account the class structure of the country, which I suggest Opposition Members are more intensely engaged upon destroying than are Conservative Members, it is inconceivable that there will be a substantial take-up among the poor with incomes of less than £4,000 per annum of the opportunities alleged to be offered by the assisted places scheme. Indeed, unless there were to be a sudden resolution of the class conflict and removal of class divisions, it is impossible to conceive of that sort of advantage being taken. I do not imagine that in the lifetime of this Government, or for several Governments to come, we shall see the miraculous eradication of the class system.
1.30 am
However, there are other reasons for believing that this system has never been geared to the needs of the poor. About half an hour ago the Secretary of State informed us that the Government intend to spend £3 million on 6,000 pupils. That is an average, over each year, of £500 per head. As a result, the Government anticipate that the overwhelming majority of those going into assisted places will come from homes that will require remissions of substantially less than £500 a year.
Therefore, if the total allocation for each year is divided by the number of children they expect in the scheme, the children of the poor will not reap any advantage. The Government recognise that. The other weakness of the Government's proposal is that they manage to equate attendance at maintained schools for two years before the great deciding examination with poverty—or something


less than affluence. That is a ridiculous error.
There is evidence to show that the Government do not pretend that the scheme will help the poor. We have received no undertaking, despite continuous questioning, about how much each parent will be expected to pay in addition to the fees in order to meet the conditions of attendance. We have had no indication whether children are to be assisted with travel to school or with school meals.
We have received no definition of the role of education authorities. Will they be permitted to provide top-up finance towards tuition, boarding and travelling fees as well as towards other additional expenses? If local authorities or school bursaries do not provide money, the vast majority of those on limited incomes will never be able to send their children to such schools.
Turning to the reality of the Government's suggested income structure, the family with one child and a total income of £6,000 a year will be expected to pay £354 towards the annual tuition costs of the assisted place. That family is likely to have a mortgage involving repayments of £1,400 a year. After tax and other stoppages, it is likely to have a net income of £4,800 a year. The sum of £354 represents one-tenth of the family's net income after meeting the basic needs of housing, and after tax and national insurance contributions. It is impossible to imagine that such a family would be able to send its child to an assisted place—[HON. MEMBERS: "Why?"]. The tuition costs will represent one-tenth of that family's net income. That does not include travelling costs or the cost of school meals. To send such a child to an assisted place would require a level of aspiration that is beyond even the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton).It is cruel to play such a joke. If a family aspires to get its child into private education by this means, it will find that the Government's formula mocks it.
If a family has a gross income of £7,800, it will be expected to pay tuition fees of £894, provided that it has only one child. It will have a net income of approximately £6,200 a year after stoppages. It will be paying about £2,000 per annum for its mortgage at present

interest rates, leaving a residual income of about £4,200. That family will have to pay one-fifth of its income to get a child into the scheme. If the Minister doubts my figures, I suggest that he pops along to the Library to read the written answer given to his hon. Friend the Member for Streatham (Mr. Shelton) on 7 February.

Mr. Tony Marlow: The hon. Gentlemen tells us a sad and heartrending story of a family on £6,000 a year being required to spend £354 a year on school fees for one child, which will be one-tenth of its net income. If the husband and wife each smoked 20 cigarettes a day, how much would they save—[HON. MEMBERS: 'Choice".]—if they decided that instead of spending money on cigarettes they would stop smoking and send their child to school at a cost of £354 a year? If the hon. Gentleman made that calculation, I believe that he would find that that couple would make a significant saving, in addition to sending their child to school and improving their health.

Mr. Kinnock: The hon. Gentleman should explain other factors. Why is it that that couple, with their limited income, and ready to give up smoking and drinking—if ever started—get assistance to send their child to an independent school but do not receive the bus fares to send that child to a maintained school? That is only one inconsistency. There are many others.
The major inconsistency is in the scheme itself. The Government suggest that the child who qualifies is one who manages to reach his or her examination-passing capability at 11 or 13 years of age, whose parents can afford to pay a substantial part of the fees not met by the assisted places scheme and who neither smoke, drink nor want to take holidays. I suppose that there are such people, and I am the last to criticise them. If people want to surrender their pleasures in order, as they think, to advantage their child, they have my full commendation as caring parents. However, does the Minister really want to superimpose on all the other selective disadvantaging systems in our society the further requirement on a family not to participate in normal habits, to no great excess, in order to secure that opportunity for its child, which is at least dubious in advantage, if that advantage exists?
We can debate choice further, but that is better not done during a guillotined Report stage. I hope that we shall have that opportunity later.

Mr. Michael Brown: Further to the point raised by may hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, North(Mr. Marlow), I know of a number of people in my constituency, as must other hon. Members, whose income is not much more than £6,000 or £7,000, and who pay much more than £350 a year to send their children to private school. It is not incredible, if parents have saved and made the choice, that they should wish to pay £350 a year for an assisted place.

Mr. Kinnock: I am the first to recognise that such people exist. They have freedom to follow their choice, for whatever reason. I object to the idea that a precondition to securing what the Government consider to be an advantage for a child should be the test of parental interest and motivation. I hope that the Minister will distinguish between all these aspects. Unless he does, he will leave a confused view of the possibilities offered by the scheme.
What about the realities? What about the systems that we already have for testing? What are the consequences of providing various forms of assistance for families when the aspirations and motivations vary from family to family? In Cheshire—a county with which the Secretary of State will be familiar—there is an assisted places scheme. A report provided by the chief education officer to the education committee at the beginning of this year showed the income distribution of the parents of children using the scheme. Twenty-four per cent. of children in the scheme were covered by a heading of "incomes not declared", presumably because the income level was too high to benefit from any financial assistance. The other figures were: incomes over £10,000, 32 per cent; incomes between £7,000 and £10,000, 26 per cent.; incomes between £5,000 and £7,000, 11 per cent.; incomes between £3,000 and £5,000, 5 per cent.; and incomes below £2,000, 2 per cent.
If that is the consequence of an assisted places scheme, it is certainly not offering advantages to people on the kind of incomes scale that was laid down by the

Secretary of State in his answer to the hon. Member for Streatham on 7 February. Hon. Members can examine these papers from the Cheshire county council at any time. They emphasise and demonstrate yet again the enormous disparities in the use of such systems, dependent almost entirely on the material background of the home and the social class from which the pupil comes.
If Conservative Members want to join us in the eradication of those class divisions, I will cheerfully join hands with them. But they have a most schizophrenic attitude. They want to espouse the idea of ending all the class divisions, while at the same time insisting on maintaining, watering and otherwise manuring the roots of that class system by keeping the independent sector in education.

Mr. Peter Bottomley: Earlier, when I suggested that the average cost of the assisted places scheme would be less than that of maintaining a child in the State sector the hon. Gentleman told me that I was wrong. He has now said that his average estimated cost is £500, which is lower than the average cost in the maintained school.
The hon. Gentleman read out the income bands in Cheshire, but surely those must be compared with the distribution of income in Cheshire itself. Has he bothered to do the research to find out what proportion of families in Cheshire have an income of less than £3,000, or between £3,000 and £5,000? Or is he just producing figures which provide no comparison and therefore mean nothing?

Mr. Kinnock: It is fair to use the figures produced by the Cheshire county council, on which basis it is prepared to decide the future of its scheme. Even if that were not the case, and even if the local authority were not acting on the basis of these figures, I cannot imagine that Cheshire is such a blessed plot on the face of England that it is so different from the general pattern of income distribution as to make these figures meaningless or worth less than I think they are.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Mr. Nicholas Winterton (Macclesfield) rose—

Mr. Kinnock: I shall give way to the hon. Member later. I realise that he is from Cheshire and I will give way, but I


was hoping that I would not be interrupted quite so often. A lot of hon. Members want to speak before we reach the witching hour of two o'clock.
Conservative Members must, in their support for this system, understand that there are elementary weaknesses in the view that by providing this system they can achieve their declared aim—and I give them credit at least for declaring it—of providing for those who are materially disadvantaged. Professor Halsey's recent publication "Origins and Destinations" demonstrates the differentials yet again. He says:
Class differentials are most extreme in the case of the independent Headmasters' Conference schools; a boy from the service class"—
that is administrative or professional class and above—
had nearly forty times the chance of his working-class peer of entering one of these schools…In the case of Direct Grant schools his chance was twelve times as good, and in that of the grammar schools it was three times as good.
1.45 am
There is a dictatorship of class in the system of educational opportunity. It should be a matter of unanimity, if we represent the people and children of this country, that we are determined to eradicate those divisions, not only because of our interest in securing the educational advantage of the children, but because we know that the divisions that begin as fissures of selection at the age of 11 widen and harshen into intracable divisions in industry, culture and attitude and become prolonged and repeated from generation unto generation. If any hon. Member considers that that system of breach and enmity is unhelpful, unproductive and altogether abominable, he will not seek to perpetuate those divisions by trying to introduce an assisted places scheme, even with the cosmetic of trying to help those from less affluent backgrounds.
The facts are known. We have seen the direct grant scheme and the Cheshire example. We understand what the income scale will boil down to. The system was never intended to benefit the poor. It has always been an accommodation of parental snobbery scheme, and not a scheme for the assistance of children who could not secure advantage.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that it is probable that Cheshire needs to take up quite a number of places in an independent Catholic school, because there are inadequate Catholic schools to provide an education for children of the many parents who wish to use denominational schools? I am sure that, from what the hon. Gentleman has said about school transport, he values the denominational schools and will wish to see Cheshire continue to take up those places. Will he correct the impression that he has given to the House?

Mr. Kinnock: If it is a mistaken impression, I shall certainly correct it, though I do not think that it is mistaken. I do not think that the distribution is so eccentric as to make those figures meaningless. I repeat that the Cheshire county council is making major educational decisions on the basis of the figures. Who is to say that in other parts of the country there will not always be caveats, reservations and demographic considerations that may slightly strengthen the Secretary of State's argument or enormously weaken it?
The case put by the hon. Member for Macclesfield does not make any significant difference to the argument. However, I hope that his concern for the rights of people to secure denominational education for their children will be demonstrated tomorrow when we shall be testing whether he and his hon. Friends really want people to have the right of choice of denominational education as we discuss the transport clause.

Dr. Boyson: We do not like the amendments. One would involve the whole income of the family, which would mean a return to the means tests of the 1930s, which I am sure are well remembered by the Labour Party, and the other would allow parents to exclude only the income of their children.
It was interesting to hear the attack of the hon. Member for Bedwellty (Mr. Kinnock) on the income scale that we have provided. He complained not that we are helping the rich but that some parents will not be able to afford fees, even with the help that we are offering. We must have disappointed Labour Members.

Mr. Kinnock: It is a con trick.

Dr. Boyson: We shall see whether parents take it up. Let us see what the hon. Gentleman says in two years' time. He and his hon. Friends would not be so worried if they thought that it was a con trick. They fear what may happen.
A family with an income of £4,000 a year and one child will not have to make any contribution. The minimum help under the scheme goes to a one-child family earning £7,800. No mortgage payments are included—nothing but £300 per child. There is no question of mortgages or anything adding up.
At present, the average wage, upgraded from 1979 earnings, is £5,928. The average income of a family—this figure includes pensioners—is £6,250. I do not think that anyone can say that we are being over-generous by it being free up to £4,000 with one child, and going up to £7,800, beyond which no help is given.
What will it mean? Let us have the figures, instead of going round the country and seeing what is happening in Cheshire, the Windermere canal area and other odd places. Let us look at the situation. This scale will mean that 30 per cent. of families can send their children to the ex-direct grant schools free; they pay nothing. Incidentally, those are the families with least income. That does not seem wrong to me or to my hon. Friends. It may not even seem wrong to the hon. Member for Bedwellty. He may see nothing wrong in the 30 per cent. at the bottom paying nothing.

Mr. Christopher Price: Mr. Christopher Price rose—

Dr. Boyson: I shall give way in a minute. I must get these scales across. I know that this is worrying Opposition Members, but they must have a degree of patience.
Forty-three per cent. will get some help, and 27 per cent.—those at the top, such as Members of Parliament, the people gathered here, the rich and the class-ridden in our society—will get nothing. It seems to me that we are doing this pretty fairly.

Mr. Christopher Price: Mr. Christopher Price rose—

Dr. Boyson: Let me give three illustrations, then I shall give way.

Mr. Christopher Price: Mr. Christopher Price rose—

Dr. Boyson: No, the hon. Member will have to wait for the three illustrations. They may answer his point, because I know that he is carefully following what I am saying.
A mathematics teacher with £5,512—we are short of maths teachers, so I am saying this to encourage them—with one child, will pay £4 a week. We have had illustrations of where one can save that sum, and I shall come to that matter later.
The agricultural labourer is often mentioned when social benefits are discussed. The hon. Member for Berwick-on-Tweed (Mr. Beith) is an expert on the agricultural labourer. He exists—and I do not mean that at all unpleasantly. I am sure that the hon. Member would want to know how the agricultural labourer will be affected. On the average wage of £3,500 it will be free, whether he has one child, two, four or whatever number. For the docker, the average income is £6,500. If he had one child he would pay £504. If he had three children he would pay £324. There is no doubt that on that scale the help is going to those who need it.

Mr. Christopher Price: When the hon. Gentleman says that 30 per cent. will go free, is he saying that, in terms of the 6,000 places and the £5 million, the Government have calculated that that is the result that they expect and aim to achieve when the first tranche of the assisted place pupils enter the schools?
I see the Secretary of State mumbling "No, no, no". If the answer is "No", will the Minister say whether what he has said is true or false?

Dr. Boyson: The hon. Member knows me well enough to know that, obviously, what I say is true. What I mean is that children from 30 per cent. of the families in this country will go free on this scale. Obviously the hon. Member wants to know what will happen under this scheme, and he will become a supporter of it as we go along. We must try it in an experimental, progressive fashion, and see what actually happens.

Mr. Selwyn Gummer: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Dr. Boyson: Let me just repeat the figures for the hon. Member for Lewisham, West (Mr. Price). I do not want him to have a worried night. For 30 per cent. of families it will be free; 43 per cent. will have some help; and 27 per cent. will have no help at all. That is what it means.

Mr. Gummer: Does my hon. Friend agree that the real problem with the Opposition's argument—which has taken up much of the time that Back Benchers might have used—is that they would prefer people to spend their money on a motor car or on smoking rather than on educating their children as they would like? What they really want to do is to exclude from these schools the very people for whom they ought to be fighting.

Dr. Boyson: I agree entirely. It seems to me that once this scale is published, and once people know the help that they can get—and, as my right hon. and learned Friend has said tonight, 113 of the 118 former direct grant schools have applied, with their superb sixth form academic record, which no one in this Chamber can deny—shouts of joy will be heard in this country. I have no doubt about that.
Let me go on to another point about cost. My hon. Friend the Member for Woolwich, West (Mr. Bottomley) asked about cost. I mentioned this point a number of times in Committee. Those who were not privileged to enjoy the 100-plus hours that we spent in Committee on the Bill must have a little of those joys this evening.
The average recoupment cost for children between the ages of 11 and 16 as between one county and another when real money has to go over and when counties become realistic—even county education officers become realistic at that time—is £675. At 16-plus the cost is £1,155. The figures for six ex-direct grant schools in Manchester average £841. Direct grant schools, we all agree, are heavily weighted at the sixth form. If one adds up—I know that many hon. Members have their mental calculators with them tonight and as 2 o'clock approaches they will work even more speedily—it means that Manchester ratepayers would save money if they sent their children to direct grant schools. I

am not suggesting that all the children in Manchester should be sent to direct grant schools. I do not want to put that idea into people's heads. But no one can say that we are wasting money.
Last week I visited a school on the South Coast, where I had a speaking engagement. Whilst there I looked at the day fees, which differed from those for day boarders, and compared them with day fees at Tiffins—a Manchester grammar school for day boys—and discovered how realistic the fees were.
I should like to mention one other table, because it will answer one of the points made by the hon. Member for Bedwellty. The hon. Gentleman did not like our scale because people would have to make sacrifices to enable their children to attend the direct grant schools. That does not seem to be a bad thing. If people say "This is what we want; this is our priority", we are prepared to help them, but they must also try.
By sheer chance I have here a table showing the distribution of income of families with children at independent secondary schools. I obtained this whilst listening to the hon. Member for Bedwellty, and we enjoyed listening to him in Committee from time to time. But this is new stuff. Neither of us has used this before. One might say that this is going out with a flourish this evening.
The average family income is £6,200. Approximately 1·5 per cent. of children in independent secondary schools come from families with an income of less than £4,000; 2·1 per cent. come from families where the income is between £4,000 and £5,000; and 3·1 per cent. come from families with an income of £6,000 to £7,000. About 9·8 per cent. of children at independent secondary schools come from families with an income below £8,000. Those people are achieving what they want to do without any help at all.
The direct grant scheme was different, because money was given to the school and the school then took in the pupils. Pupils from some of the richest families in the country could go there completely free. That is totally different from the assisted places scheme, because the money will go only to those who need it. The Opposition may not like it, but this is selectivity with a vengeance, because the money goes to those who need it.
We believe that in some of the ex-direct grant and other schools where there are superb academic standards there are those who need help. Those studying mathematics and languages need help just as much as the ballet dancers and musicians. What is wrong with being born a linguist? Such a person may in future be able to help the country in his way. What is wrong with being born a mathematician? Of course, mathematicians are often spent by the time they reach the age of 30.

We believe that this scheme will enable the children of some of the poorest families in the country to have a superb academic education. By doing that we shall be helping the hon. Member for Bedwellty to do what he wants to do, namely, to break the class system.

2 am

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 232, Noes 290.

Division No. 177]
AYES
[2 am


Abse, Leo
Ellis, Tom (Wrexham)
Mabon, Rt Kon Dr J. Dickson


Adams, Allen
English, Michael
McCartney, Hugh


Allaun, Frank
Evans, Ioan (Aberdare)
McDonald, Dr Oonagh


Anderson, Donald
Evans, John (Newton)
McElhone, Frank


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Ewing, Harry
McKay, Allen (Penistone)


Armstrong, Rt Hon Ernest
Faulds Andrew
McKelvey, William


Ashley, Rt Hon Jack
Field, Frank
MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor


Ashton, Joe
Flannery, Martin
Maclennan, Robert


Atkinson, Norman (H gey, Tott'ham)
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
McMahon, Andrew


Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)
Foot, Rt Hon Michael
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, Central)


Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (Heywood)
Forrester, John
McNally, Thomas


Beith, A. J.
Foster, Derek
McWilliam, John


Benn, Rt Hon Anthony Wedgwood
Foulkes, George
Magee, Bryan


Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)
Fraser, John (Lambeth, Norwood)
Marks, Kenneth


Bidwell, Sydney
Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald
Marshall, David (Gl'sgow, Shettles'n)


Booth, Rt Hon Albert
Garrett, John (Norwich S)
Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)


Boothroyd, Miss Betty
George, Bruce
Marshall, Jim (Leicester South)


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John
Martin, Michael (Gl'gow, Springb'rn)


Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)
Golding, John
Maxton, John


Brown, Robert C. (Newcastle W)
Graham, Ted
Meacher, Michael


Brown, Ronald W. (Hackney S)
Grant, George (Morpeth)
Mellish, Rt Hon Robert


Brown, Ron (Edinburgh, Leith)
Grant, John (Islington C)
Mikardo, Ian


Buchan, Norman
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Millan, Rt Hon Bruce


Callaghan, Jim (Middleton &amp; P)
Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)
Miller, Dr M. S. (East Kilbride)


Campbell, Ian
Harrison, Rt Hon Walter
Mitchell, Austin (Grimsby)


Campbell-Savours, Dale
Hart, Rt Hon Dame Judith
Mitchell, R. C. (Soton, Itchen)


Canavan, Dennis
Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy
Morris, Rt Hon Alfred (Wythenshawe)


Cant, R. B.
Haynes, Frank
Morris, Rt Hon Charles (Openshaw)


Carmichael, Neil
Healey, Rt Hon Denis
Morris, Rt Hon John (Aberavon)


Carter-Jones, Lewis
Heffer, Eric S.
Morton, George


Cartwright, John
Hogg, Norman (E Dunbartonshire)
Moyle, Rt Hon Roland


Clark, Dr David (South Shields)
Holland, Stuart (L'beth, Vauxhall)
Mulley, Rt Hon Frederick


Cocks, Rt Hon Michael (Bristol S)
Home Robertson, John
Newens, Stanley


Cohen, Stanley
Homewood, William
Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon


Coleman, Donald
Hooley, Frank
Ogden, Eric


Concannon, Rt Hon J. D.
Horam, John
O'Neill, Martin


Conlan, Bernard
Howell, Rt Hon Denis (B'ham, Sm H)
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley


Cook, Robin F.
Howells, Geraint
Owen, Rt Hon Dr David


Cowans, Harry
Huckfield, Les
Palmer, Arthur


Craigen, J. M. (Glasgow, Maryhill)
Hughes, Mark (Durham)
Park, George


Crowther, J. S.
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen North)
Parry, Robert


Cryer, Bob
Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Pavitt, Laurie


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Janner, Hon Greville
Pendry, Tom


Cunningham, George (Islington S)
Jay, Rt Hon Douglas
Penhaligon, David


Cunningham, Dr John (Whitehaven)
John, Brynmor
Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)


Dalyell, Tam
Johnston, Russell (Iverness)
Prescott, John


Davidson, Arthur
Jones, Rt Hon Alec (Rhondda)
Price, Christopher (Lewisham West)


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Lianelll)
Jones, Barry (East Flint)
Race, Reg


Davies, I for (Gower)
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn (Leeds South)


Deakins, Eric
Kerr, Russell
Richardson, Jo


Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)
Kilroy-Silk, Robert
Roberts, Allan (Bootle)


Dempsey, James
Kinnock, Neil
Roberts, Ernest (Hackney North)


Dewar, Dorald
Lambie, David
Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)


Dixon, Donald
Lamborn, Harry
Robertson, George


Dobson, Frank
Lamond, James
Robinson, Geoffrey (Coventry NW)


Dormand, Jack
Leadbitter, Ted
Rodgers, Rt Hon William


Douglas, Dick
Leighton, Ronald
Rooker, J. W.


Douglas-Mann, Bruce
Lestor, Miss Joan (Eton &amp; Slough)
Roper, John


Dubs, Alfred
Lewis, Arthur (Newham North West)
Ross, Ernest (Dundee West)


Duffy, A. E. P.
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)


Dunn, James A. (Liverpool, Kirkdale)
Litherland, Robert
Rowlands, Ted


Eadie, Alex
Lofthouse, Geoffrey
Sever, John


Eastham, Ken
Lyon, Alexander (York)
Sheerman, Barry


Ellis, Raymond (N'E Derbyshire)
Lyons, Edward (Bradford West)
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert (A'ton-u-L)




Silkin, Rt Hon John (Deptford)
Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)
Whitehead, Phillip


Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)
Thomas, Mike (Newcastle East)
Whitlock, William


Silverman, Julius
Thomas, Dr Roger (Carmarthen)
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)


Smith, Rt Hon J. (North Lanarkshire)
Thorne, Stan (Preston South)
Wilson, Rt Hon Sir Harold (Huyton)


Snape, Peter
Tilley, John
Wilson, William (Coventry SE)


Soley, Clive
Torney, Tom
Winnick, David


Spearing, Nigel
Urwin, Rt Hon Tom
Woodall, Alec


Spriggs, Leslie
Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.
Wrigglesworth, Ian


Stallard, A. W.
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)
Wright, Sheila


Stoddart, David
Walker, Rt Hon Harold (Doncaster)
Young, David (Bolton East)


Stott, Roger
Weetch, Ken



Strang, Gavin
Wellbeloved, James
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Straw, Jack
Welsh, Michael
Mr. Terry Davis and


Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley
White, Frank R. (Bury &amp; Radcliffe)
Mr. James Tinn.


Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton West)
White, James (Glasgow, Pollok)





NOES


Adley, Robert
Dover, Denshore
Jopling, Rt Hon Michael


Aitken, Jonathan
du Cann, Rt Hon Edward
Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith


Alexander, Richard
Dunn, Robert (Dartford)
Kaberry Sir Donald


Ancram, Michael
Durant, Tony
Kershaw, Anthony


Arnold, Tom
Eden, Rt Hon Sir John
King, Rt Hon Tom


Aspinwall, Jack
Edwards, Rt Hon N. (Pembroke)
Kitson, Sir Timothy


Atkins, Rt Hon H. (Spelthorne)
Eggar, Timothy
Lamont, Norman


Atkins, Robert (Preston North)
Emery, Peter
Lang, Ian


Atkinson, David (B'mouth, East)
Fairbairn, Nicholas
Langford-Holt, Sir John


Baker, Kenneth (St. Marylebone)
Fairgrieve, Russell
Latham, Michael


Baker, Nicholas (NorthDorset)
Faith, Mrs Sheila
Lawrence, Ivan


Banks, Robert
Farr, John
Lawson, Nigel


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Fenner, Mrs Peggy
Lee, John


Bendall, Vivian
Finsberg, Geoffrey
Le Marchant, Spencer


Benyon, Thomas (Abingdon)
Fisher Sir Nigel
Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark


Benyon, W. (Buckingham)
Fletcher, Alexande- (Edinburgh N)
Lester, Jim (Beeston)


Best, Keith
Fookes, Miss Janet
Lloyd, Ian (Havant &amp; Waterloo)


Bevan, David Gilroy
Forman, Nigel
Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Fowler, Rt Hon Norman
Loveridge, John


Biggs-Davison, John
Fox, Marcus
Luce, Richard


Blackburn, John
Fraser Rt Hon H. (Stafford &amp; St)
Lyell, Nicholas


Elaker, Peter
Fraser, Peter (South Angus)
McCrindle, Robert


Body, Richard
Fry, Peter
Macfarlane, Neil


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Gardiner George (Reigate)
MacGregor, John


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Garel-Jones, Tristan
MacKay, John (Argyll)


Bottomley, Peter (Woolwich West)
Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian
McNair-Wilson, Michael (Newbury)


Bowden, Andrew
Glyn, Dr Alan
McNair-Wilson, Patrick (New Forest)


Boyson, Dr Rhodes
Goodhart, Philip
McQuarrie, Albert


Bradford, Rev. R.
Goodlad, Alastair
Madel, David


Braine, Sir Bernard
Gorst, John
Major, John


Bright, Graham
Gow, Ian
Marland, Paul


Brinton, Tim
Gower, Sir Raymond
Marlow, Tony


Brittan, Leon
Grant, Anthony (Harrow C)
Marshall, Michael (Arundel)


Brocklebank-Fowler, Christopher
Gray, Hamish
Marten, Neil (Banbury)


Brooke, Hon Peter
Greenway Harry
Mates, Michael


Brotherton, Michael
Grieve, Percy
Mather, Carol


Brown, Michael (Brigg &amp; Sc'thorpe)
Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St Edmunds)
Maude, Rt Hon Angus


Browne, John (Winchester)
Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)
Mawby, Ray


Bruce-Gardyne, John
Grist, Ian
Mawhinney, Dr Brian


Bryan, Sir Paul
Grylls, Michael
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin


Buck, Antony
Gummer. John Selwyn
Mayhew, Patrick


Budgen, Nick
Hamilton, Hon Archie (Eps'm&amp;Ew'll)
Mellor, David


Bulmer, Esmond
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Meyer, Sir Anthony


Butcher, John
Hampson, Dr Keith
Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove &amp; Redditch)


Butler, Hon Adam
Hannam, John
Mills, Iain (Meriden)


Cadbury, Jocelyn
Haselhurst, Alan
Mills, Peter (West Devon)


Carlisle, John (Luton West)
Hastings, Stephen
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Hawksley, Warren
Moate, Roger


Carlisle, Rt Hon Mark (Runcorn)
Hayboe, Barney
Monro, Hector


Chalker, Mrs Lynda
Heddle, John
Montgomery, Fergus


Channon, Paul
Henderson, Barry
Moore, John


Chapman, Sydney
Heseitine, Rt Hon Michael
Morris, Michael (Northampton, Sth)


Clark, Hon Alan (Plymouth, Sutton)
Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.
Morrison, Hon Charles (Devizes)


Clark, Sir William (Croydon South)
Hill, James
Morrison, Hon Peter (City of Chester)


Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Hogg, Hon Douglas (Grantham)
Mudd, David


Cockeram, Eric
Holland, Philip (Carlton)
Murphy, Christopher


Colvin, Michael
Hooson, Tom
Myles, David


Cope, John
Hordern, Peter
Neale, Gerrard


Cormack, Patrick
Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Needham, Richard


Corrie, John
Howell, Rt Hon David (Guildford)
Nelson, Anthony


Costain, A. P.
Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)
Neubert, Michael


Cranborne, Viscount
Hunt, David (Wirral)
Newton, Tony


Critchley, Julian
Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)
Nott, Rt Hon John


Crouch, David
Hurd, Hon Douglas
Onslow, Cranley


Dean, Paul (North Somerset)
Irvine, Charles (Cheltenham)
Page, John (Harrow, West)


Dickens, Geoffrey
Jenkin, Rt Hon Patrick
Page, Rt Hon Sir R. Graham


Dorrell, Stephen
Johnson Smith, Geoffrey
Page, Richard (SW Hertfordshire)







Parkinson, Cecil
Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge-Br'hills)
Townsend, Cyril D. (Bexloyheath)


Parris, Matthew
Shersby, Michael
Trippier, David


Patten, Christopher (Bath)
Silvester, Fred
Trotter, Neville


Patten, John (Oxford)
Sims, Roger
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Pattie, Geoffrey
Skeet, T. H. H.
Vaughan, Dr Gerard


Pawsey, James
Smith, Dudley (War, and Leam'ton)
Viggers, Peter


Percival, Sir Ian
Speed, Keith
Waddington, David


Pink, R. Bonner
Speller, Tony
Waldegrave, Hon William


Pollock, Alexander
Spence, John
Walker, Bill (Perth &amp; E Perthshire)


Price, David (Easlleigh)
Spicer, Jim (West Dorset)
Waller, Gary


Proctor, K. Harvey
Spicer, Michael (S Worcestershire)
Ward, John


Pym, Rt Hon Francis
Sproat, Iain
Warren, Kenneth


Raison, Timothy
Squire, Robin
Watson, John


Rathbone, Tim
Stainton, Keith
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Rees, Peter (Dover and Deal)
Stanbrook, Ivor
Wells, Bowen (Kert'rd &amp; Stev'nage)


Rees-Davies, W. R.
Stanley, John
Wheeler, John


Renton, Tim
Steen, Anthony
Whitelaw, Rt Hon William


Rhodes James, Robert
Stevens, Martin
Whitney, Raymond


Ridley, Hon Nicholas
Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)
Wickenden, Keith


Ridsdale, Julian
Stewart, John (East Renfrewshire)
Wiggin, Jerry


Rifkind, Malcolm
Stokes, John
Wilkinson, John


Roberts, Wyn (Conway)
Stradling Thomas, J.
Williams, Delwyn (Montgomery)


Ross, Wm. (Londonderry)
Taylor, Robert (Croydon NW)
Winterton, Nicholas


Rost, Peter
Tebbit, Norman
Wolfson, Mark


Royle, Sir Anthony
Temple-Morris, Peter
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Sainsbury, Hon Timothy
Thatcher, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret
Younger, Rt Hon George


St. John Stevas, Rt Hon Norman
Thomas, Rt Hon Peter (Hendon S)



Scott, Nicholas
Thompson, Donald
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)
Thorne, Neil (Ilford South)
Lord James Douglas-Hamilton and


Shelton, William (Streatham)
Thornton, Malcolm
Mr. John Wakeham.


Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)
Townend, John (Bridlington)

Question accordingly negatived.

It being after Two o'clock, further consideration of the Bill stood adjourned pursuant to Orders [29 January and 11 February].

Bill, as amended in the Standing Committee, to be further considered this day.

Orders of the Day — BARLINNIE SPECIAL UNIT

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Peter Morrison.]

Mr. Russell Kerr: The Scottish Office is not universally admired as a centre of progress and reform, and neither is the Scottish prison system regarded as the undisputed leader in the quest for a sane, civilised and effective system of correction and control for those of Caledonia's wilder spirits who need the restraining hand of the law upon them.
I introduce my subject for tonight's Adjournment debate in this way, because it is a fact that the Barlinnie special unit, on the East side of Glasgow and adjoining Barlinnie prison, was started in 1972 and has achieved its present success—a most impressive success, as I shall hope to demonstrate—more in spite of, rather than because of, the background whence it came.
The Barlinnie experiment was, and is, based on the premise that lifers and other hard nut offenders will respond positively to being treated like human beings. Far from their period in prison proving to be, as it were, a postgraduate course in criminal activity, with the right sort of treatment, the offender, however bad his record, can be, and usually is, reclaimed for a useful role in society. That is what Barlinnie proves.
Conditions at Barlinnie sometimes strike the ordinary member of the public as rather bizarre, and certainly provide a contrast to the rigid discipline of the ordinary prison. There are, for example, normally no restrictions on inward or outward mail. Inmates can also make or receive unlimited telephone calls on the unit's pay-phone.
The staff employed at the unit are, of course, specially chosen—prison officers who combine a "firm-but-fair" general approach to the job with a considerable psychological insight into the mentality of prisoners, or at least that is the theory.
Inevitably, of course, the ratio of staff to prisoners is high by comparison with ordinary prisons. And that means, too, that the cost of operating at Barlinnie will be rather greater than for the normal prison.
Is this extra expense justified? After two visits to Barlinnie, I have no hesitation in answering that question in the affirmative.
Three prisoners have already been released, and two more are due out shortly. Furthermore, their star prisoner, Jimmy Boyle, an internationally known sculptor and author, is due out in, I think, 1981. I have met, and had long talks with, Boyle on each of the two occasions that I have visited Barlinnie. If ever there was a case of a human being reclaimed, it is Boyle.
A graduate of the Gorbals slums in Glasgow, Boyle had a most unenviable record as a Glasgow hoodlum and stand-over man—and a murderer to boot. Moreover, rumour had it that he was an "agent" of the notorious Kray brothers, a "hit man" in the modern terminology. Today, the unquestioned moving spirit of the Barlinnie special unit is the same Jimmy Boyle—cultivated, charming, intelligent and with some impressive works of sculpture to show to the visitor he escorts around the unit.
But at this point, the weather gets rougher. Despite international interest in this "experiment"—personally, I do not know how much longer such a success story ought to go on being described as an experiment—the simple fact is that under both types of Government recently in power there has been a marked lack of enthusiasm on the part of the Scottish Office for the work of the unit. Partly, I believe this has been due to the quite fantastic publicity which Jimmy Boyle's artistic and other activities have attracted to the unit—with a consequent increase in the difficulty of dealing with other, less glamourous prisoners. Partly, I think it may be due to the innate conservatism of the Scottish Office, and the Home Office in England, where, despite the fact that it was a Conservative Administration—with the hon. Member for North Angus and Mearns (Mr. Buchanan-Smith) prominently to the fore as the Minister most directly responsible—which launched the scheme, there has seemingly always been a suspicion of new-fangled ideas, particularly those that appeared to run counter to the philosophy set out in the Old Testament about crime and punishment, and suchlike notions beloved of our Victorian grandparents.
Whatever the reason, there has been, not least under the previous Labour Administration, with one or two honourable exceptions, a marked unwillingness

to encourage the present so-called experiment, together with a quite remarkable series of "institutional pressures" designed to play down Operation Barlinnie.
Perhaps the most notorious was the case of Ken Murray, one of the senior prison officers most closely associated with the Barlinnie experiment, and who for so-called "career reasons" was sacked from the special unit against his will and very much against his colleagues' wishes in the unit. He is currently serving in a small prison near Glasgow and is rumoured to be contemplating a move to Australia.
If he is lost to the Scottish service, it will be a terrible waste, and a terrible indictment of its bureaucratic approach. The fact is that he is amongst the most active and progressive of Scots prison officers, has studied at the Institute of Criminology in Cambridge—where I met him—and the Scottish Office can ill-afford to lose such talent.
My plea tonight is to both the Scottish Office and the Home Office to stop hiding our light under a bushel. In the view of many, this Barlinnie exercise is a dramatically successful demonstration of what can be done when humane, progressive and intelligent policies are introduced to our perennial problem of what to do with those we still find it necessary to incarcerate for long periods.
For the sake of future British society, we owe it to ourselves and to our children not to turn away from a major breakthrough in penal reform.

The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Leon Brittan): I greatly welcome the opportunity which this debate provides to go into the matters raised by the hon. Member for Feltham and Heston (Mr. Kerr). I do not propose to deal with his strictures on the Scottish Office or with his criticisms of the way in which Mr. Murray has been treated by the Scottish Office.
The reason for that is that the subject of this debate is the extension to England and Wales of the Barlinnie special unit penal experiment. That is an important and constructive subject which ought to be considered, rather than raking back over the past to see whether the Scottish Office, under different Administrations,


has shown the degree of enthusiasm which the hon. Gentleman would wish to see for this experiment.
Barlinnie prison is fairly and squarely within the responsibilities of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland. The operation and monitoring of the Barlinnie special unit does not fall to the Home Office. None the less, we naturally keep in the closest touch with our Scottish colleagues, and we are anxious to learn from their experiences and experiments.
The special unit at Barlinnie was set up following the recommendations of a working party in the Scottish Home and Health Department on the treatment of certain male long-term prisoners and potentially violent prisoners, which reported in 1971. The working party's main task was to consider what arrangements should be made for the treatment of certain inmates who were likely to be detained in custody for very long periods or with propensities to violence towards staff. Prison staff in Scotland were particularly concerned about violent prisoners serving long determinate sentences and, since the abolition of the death penalty, about the prospect of very violent prisoners serving life sentences who might take the view that they had nothing to lose by violent and recalcitrant behaviour, and about the effect that these prisoners might have on others. In the course of its work the working party visited Grendon and Parkhurst C wing, a point to which I shall return.
The main conclusion of the working party was that a special unit should be provided within the Scottish penal system for the treatment of known violent inmates, those considered potentially violent and selected long-term inmates. It was envisaged that the regime in the unit would be psychiatrically orientated, and that for this purpose there should be psychiatric support, that staff should be a mixture of discipline and nursing officers and that the traditional officer-inmate relationship should be modified to approximate more closely to a therapist-patient basis while retaining a firm but fair discipline system. The unit would have its own governor and would be run separately from any other establishment.
The recommendation that a purpose-built unit be constructed within the grounds of Perth prison proved to be impracticable for various reasons. The only

available building which readily lent itself to adaptation for the purpose was a block at Barlinnie prison which had previously been used to hold female prisoners. This was refurbished and the unit opened in February 1973. The first prisoners were admitted shortly afterwards.
Though the unit is within the perimeter wall of Barlinnie it is separated from the main prison by another wall. It has its own staff complement—a governor and 14 officers, four of whom are in the nursing grades. The officers are all volunteers and are required to appear before a selection board for assessment as to suitability. Those who are successful attend a special course at the Scottish Prison Service College before taking up duty in the unit. The course includes a visit to both Grendon and Broadmoor. In addition to these permanent staff a consultant psychiatrist and psychologist give regular sessions at the unit.
Ten places are available in the unit but no more than seven inmates have ever been detained there at one time. At present there are seven, of whom five are serving sentences of life imprisonment and two are serving determinate sentences. It can be seen, therefore, that the unit represents a heavy staffing commitment and the ratio of staff to inmates has always been high compared with other establishments. Perhaps at this point I should emphasise that the Scottish prison service has more officers per inmate than the service in England and Wales. Furthermore, in Scotland the commitment of prison officers to court duties is substantially less because the police there do a great deal of the escort duties.
I turn now to the regime in the unit. Apart from the domestic duties of the unit, which are shared among the inmates, activities have included small-scale production—for example chessmen—education programmes and activities of a recreational or therapeutic nature such as sculpture and writing. Because of the limited space and lack of facilities, it has not been practicable to introduce a work routine of the type which would apply in a larger establishment, and each prisoner has, in effect, been made responsible for his own daily programme. A feature of the operation of the unit is that staff and inmates, as a community, regularly discuss and make recommendations


on matters relating to the domestic operation of the unit. It is an essential feature of the operation of the unit that the staff-inmate relationship should be a close one and should attempt to break down traditional antagonisms. Visits and personal possessions are allowed on a more generous scale than normal, and inmates are allowed to wear their own clothing.
A prisoner is recommended for transfer to the unit by the governor of the prison where he is serving his sentence. An assessment team from the unit comprising the governor, consultant psychiatrist and two members of the staff interview the prisoner and the staff who have had charge of him. The Scottish Home and Health Department takes the final decision as to a prisoner's suitability for the unit. The case is, however, discussed by the unit community—that is, both inmates and staff—before a recommendation is made. Thus inmates already in the unit have some involvement in the selection of their companions.
The history of the unit and some aspects of its operation having been described, what assessment can be made of it? How do our Scottish colleagues view the unit, which has now been in existence for seven years?
I do not make too much of the point, but I should make it clear that there are no current plans to set up additional units on similar lines in Scotland. That is partly a matter of resources, since, as I have already explained, the unit represents a heavy staffing commitment which could not readily be provided on an extensive scale. It is expensive to run. It is partly a matter of need. On the whole, the unit has successfully dealt with the problem which led to its setting up.
The Scottish Home and Health Department does not make extravagant claims for the success of the Barlinnie unit. In the seven years that it has been open only 16 prisoners have passed through it. Of that number, four have subsequently been released from prison. Two prisoners were returned to normal prisons because they proved very difficult to manage even in the unit. One of these two seriously assaulted another inmate—the only such assault in the unit. The real claim to success is that, with the one exception I have just mentioned, the unit has succeeded in containing a number of

prisoners whose previous records of violence to both staff and other prisoners had been appalling.
It has also had some success in coming to terms with prisoners who were difficult to handle because of a deep-rooted sense of inadequacy. It is generally felt in the Scottish prison service that since the unit was opened there has been less serious violence and a reduction of tension elsewhere in the prison system in Scotland. Whilst this is hard to quantify there have, since the opening of the unit, been very few serious assaults on staff in other prisons in Scotland involving the use of a weapon. The number of minor and technical assaults has remained at much the same level. This is a remarkable achievement. On the other hand, no official claims are made as to the rehabilitative effect of the unit. Given the small number of men who have passed through it, it is bound to be some considerable time before anyone can make a judgment on the long-term benefits.
Without attempting to do that. I think that we should consider the Barlinnie unit in context. We must do that when considering the lessons to be learnt for England and Wales. Certainly the idea of a therapeutic regime is not a novel one. The prison service in England and Wales has been active in experimenting with these ideas, the most notable example being Grendon, which opened in 1962. As I said at the start of my speech, the working party which led to the setting up of the Barlinnie unit visited Grendon and also Parkhurst C wing.
It must also be borne in mind that there is a great difference in size between the prison services on either side of the border, with the total Scottish prison population being only about one-eighth of the total for England and Wales. The working party was well aware of the differences in scale when seeking ideas for dealing with difficult prisoners, in particular those with severe behavioural or personality problems.
Thus in Scotland, Barlinnie has been developed, with considerable success, to meet a particular need. For England and Wales we have Grendon, which was established as a psychiatric prison to investigate and treat offenders suffering from disorders which call for a psychiatric approach and to explore the problem of the psychopath. In practice it has an


important role in treating psychopathic offenders with the intelligence and motivation to benefit from group therapy. It is the only prison of its kind in the United Kingdom and the largest in Europe.
Grendon relies heavily on group counselling as a means of enabling prisoners to discuss their problems and relieve their anxieties or aggression. Treatment of this nature in a prison depends for its success on enlightened staff—inmate relationships. Prison officers have an important therapeutic role—as in the Barlinnie unit—and have contributed much to Grendon's success. It would not be right to claim, however, that the Grendon regime is the same as that at the Barlinnie unit.
The C wing at Parkhurst—though temporarily out of commission as a special facility while D wing is being rebuilt—illustrates another aspect of our more varied regimes. It provides, under the supervision of medical and other staff, a secure environment and structured regime for prisoners who suffer from mental disorder and who could not cope with the demands which the community at Grendon makes on its members. The C wing regime, in addition to helping prisoners cope with their sentences, frees the rest of the system of a number of otherwise difficult and disruptive prisoners. I must make it clear, however, that the concept and method are by no means the same as in Barlinnie.
At a number of English prisons hospital annexes have been established which in general provide a regime less rigid than in a normal prison for those unable to cope with normal prison life. One of these, at Wormwood Scrubs, operates as a therapeutic community supervised by two visiting consultant psychiatrists.
In addition, I should point out that the far greater size of the English system, with its use of dispersal prisons makes it possible for violent and disruptive prisoners to be handled in ways which could not be available in Scotland. But the examples that I have given of the special provisions made in our own prison system show that a facility along the lines of the Barlinnie unit would be entirely compatible with what already exists in England and Wales.
We do not, however, have specific plans to introduce a similar unit, but we are

taking the utmost interest in the Barlinnie experiment. Indeed, we have active plans to study its future and see the lessons that can be learnt from it for England and Wales. We have arranged for senior Home Office officials to visit Barlinnie shortly, for the specific purpose of considering whether anything comparable is necessary, feasible and desirable on this side of the border.
For the moment, my view is that the argument so far put forward for such an experiment is cogent and impressive. But, of course, before deciding whether and when any plans should be made for such an experiment south of the border we shall have to await the results of the further examination of the Barlinnie unit that is taking place, and also take into account the inescapable fact that there are many other changes and improvements competing for a slice of our budget.

Mr. Clive Soley: I am encouraged by that part of the Minister's reply. Can he tell us whether the senior Home Office officials who have been asked to look into this will also consider what I regard as the real progress at Barlinnie, namely, a reduction in the number of rules and a more generous interpretation of those that remain? That has given prisoners and staff an opportunity to break away from the normal tight institutionalisation normally found in prisons. If that principle could be applied throughout our prisons we might give prisoners the self-respect necessary to reform themselves, and we might also give it to the staff to help them to reform themselves.

Mr. Brittan: The features described by the hon. Member for Hammersmith, North (Mr. Soley) form part of the Barlinnie regime. Obviously, the senior Home Office officials who will look at Barlinnie will examine the implications and potential for development along those lines in England and Wales.
It is fair to say that even in Scotland the Barlinnie unit is conceived as having a special role for a special purpose in relation to particular prisoners who have had specific problems. It is in that context that it should be looked at, and it is in that context that it will be looked at in a serious and constructive way

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at twenty-six minutes to Three o'clock am